Yeah right, how dare people have different opinions than me. What an awful world that would be. If only everybody felt the same as me what a wonderful world that would be. Though that would be the world of religious sheep and we have been there and it sucks. What the fuck are you doing here Cristina Rad? Didn’t communism suck enough, lets just follow another authoritarian figure rather than allowing any critical thinking to take root. Sexism exists I agree but show me a group of people less sexist then the atheist community and I will buy you a cookie.

There are some opinions that by the simple fact of disagreeing with them, you show yourself to be a total fucking asshole. “It is unfair and unacceptable that women on the Internet get the disproportionate and targeted harassment that they do” is not an opinion with which anyone who is not a shithead disagrees. Now, we’re not going to send you a gulag for expressing a dissenting opinion on this (or any other) matter, but if you express an opinion in opposition to “women do not deserve vicious harassment on the internet,” we will express our opinion of your utter douchebaggery.

Do you think we’re all authoritarian and religious because the vast majority of people in our society agree that slavery is bad?? If someone tried to claim slavery was good, would it be Stalinesque of us to summarily tell zem to fuck off?!

Oh, and go ahead and point out what “critical thinking” will actually vindicate attitudes that it’s not important if women online get rape threats en masse. I don’t hold out much hope for you…

And I don’t know if you’ve noticed over the past YEAR, but there are portions of the atheist community that are really fucking sexist!! Where the fuck have you been?! And, yes, I can find you a group of people less sexist than atheists: third-wave, social-justice-oriented feminists! So give me that cookie, stat!

Moreover, even if (and I said “IF”) the atheist community is less sexist than most other communities, well…

The goal is NOT SEXIST AT ALL. Because the fact that sexism is worse somewhere else isn’t much comfort to the person who has to evaluate why there’s a camera face-up at some guy’s ankle ambling toward her skirt!

So let me get this straight, you’re right and I’m wrong because you say so, you’re funny. The internet is full of teenage boys who troll people and their trolling when confronted with women will take on a sexist response. If you take this trolling seriously then you will give them power, more power than their trolling deserves. They’re teenage boys for crying out load and probably geeks and nerds, they would run a mile if confronted with the same women in real life. Nasty little sods I grant you but without their keyboard you wouldn’t hear a peep out of them.

OH and third-wave, social-justice-oriented feminists! You will find them sexist but It will be aimed towards men. Not interested in the rights and wrongs of this view just saying that you haven’t earned that cookie yet.

So do you actually have an argument about why you apparently think “women deserve vicious sexual harassment on the internet” is a defensible position? Do you actually have an argument as to why “slavery is great!” is a defensible position? Because if you don’t have an argument, then yes, I AM vastly more likely to be right, and it’s not just because I say so, it’s because you apparently can’t refute me (this is how debate works, you know).

Moreover, the “they’re just teenagers and it’s no big deal attitude” was explicitly addressed in the video at length. Why don’t you watch it? Why don’t you respond to what they said that in fact these are NOT barely-functioning people in it just for the lulz, and that there are significant social patterns in who gets targeted this way. Repeating your premise without acknowledging that someone has tried to communicate why they think it’s wrong is a shitty thing to do.

What’s more, your “well it’s the status quo so it must be fine” attitude about women’s baseline level of harassment is just plain pompous, privileged, and tiresome.

Sorry, criticizing how men are socialized to act in our culture and discussing the real harm that this does to women is not “sexist against men” any more than “black people are the real racists.” You will note that third-wave feminists overwhelmingly appreciate the support of male allies and do not think that the denigrating and misogynistic attitudes of our culture are inherent to maleness. Rather, we think that’s a toxic social phenomenon thatcan change(and that we are seeing change!)…rather, it seems to be the patriarchy-defenders who take such a dim view of men’s nature (but you overlook this because they make excuses for it that you find convenient).

I think you sound every bit like a whiny child who doesn’t even know what the word “misogynist” means on a sociopolitical level, and therefore can’t understand why the cultural baggage associated with it does not make “misandrist” a parallel term. I also think you sound like a pseudo-intellectual fool who can’t understand that criticizing someone’s social privilege and the harm inflicted on others by the way they are socialized to behave does not in any way translate to hating any essential nature of the person. Feminists don’t criticize men like you simply because you are men. Rather, we criticize men (and women) like you for your thoughtless, entitled, harmful BEHAVIOR that affects us, our friends, our families, and our societies.

I imagine it must suck for you to be criticized, but rather than make up a word to whine about it, you could learn a thing or two from those who did not grow up with your advantages, and then actually become a person who deserves praise rather than criticism.

I like that idea but I think it would be better if the goats weren’t specifically meant to represent individuals. It would emphasize that the trolls will go after anyone that strays outside of the asshole-approved area.

Ah, I forgot that links on your blog lead to permanent moderation memory hole. So….

Cristina, do you think it might be ironic at best, perverse at worst, to have a panel discussion on so-called trolls and Internet bullies, when on that panel are two proven Internet bullies and cyberstalkers (Greg Laden and Stephanie Zvan), and a woman whose primary form of debate is to belittle, demean, insult, and dismiss anyone who holds opinions contrary to her own (Rebecca Watson).

Greg Laden probably got booked for this talk before all this unpleasantness exploded with Justin.

What exactly has Stephanie done that you consider “cyberstalking”? Are you one of those pathetic trolls that thinks commenting in an open blog and responding to someone’s comments constitutes “cyberstalking”?

Oh, and forgot to add: with regards to RW, when the people disagreeing with her are saying things like “Well, if I can’t corner women in elevators, then how can I get laid?” (or words to that effect), there really isn’t anything more appropriate than belittling, demeaning, and dismissing, because those views are sexist and irredeemably stupid.

It’s high time you learned that your gender politics are just as evidence-free and ignorant as creationism, and they will be mocked accordingly.

2) It’s not impressive to simply state the name of a logical fallacy–you have to state what you think the logical fallacy is AND WHY if you want to be taken seriously.

3) I have no confidence in your ability to actually identify and define a strawman. I’ve seen way too many people crying “strawman!” for any paraphrasing no matter how appropriate just to derail, and even more frequently I see people insisting they are being “strawmanned” when in fact their argument is being analyzed and assessed and its nastier implicit assumptions are being discussed.

Here is a handy primer on what is and isn’t a strawman. Read the whole thread for more debunking of common disingenuous attempts to claim strawmen.

1) Sorry lady, i wronged you, but i think i can right that wrong. You, dame, are a gentlewoman and a scholar. Regarding the “fuck you” part of your affirmation, i’m sorry, i don’t engage in sexual congress with ladies i met on the internet.

2) I’m not trying to impress. I will, however, follow your (let’s say) request and identify the logical fallacies you used:

Mr (or Mrs, fuck me for assuming that the default is male) johngreg asked Mrs Cristina if she finds it at least ironic that an anti-troll panel has 2 proven[citation needed] Internet Bullies and one debate challenged ([Trade Mark] and [citation needed]) woman as panelists.
In the post you made in response to johngreg, you didn’t argue for or against the moral right of the three Schrodinger’s Panelists[Trade Mark] to attend the panel and you opted for arguing against a much easier opponent, in this case a part of Rebecca Watson’s detractors who use the elevator as a pickup medium.
What makes it a straw man is the fact that you chose not to argue against the initial opponent/idea/question, but against a much weaker alternative.
What makes it a red herring is the fact that you decided to add unneeded(and unverified i might add) information to the discussion, leading it away form the fact that the food committee included 3 bulimics and towards the fact that one bulimic was called “fat” by some of it’s enemies.

3) I hereby take note of your lack of confidence in my straw man identifying skills and am willing to partake in any tests or courses that may build up said confidence.

Duroth: nope, sorry idiot, you really don’t have any idea what a strawman is!

Look, I’ll spell this out for you:

First, it is utterly wrong to claim that I didn’t address the “internet bullies” claim–did you see the post RIGHT BEFORE the one you replied to? The first, Greg Laden, really did engage in bullying behavior, so I didn’t defend him, and I speculated as to why in all probability he would be there. The second, Stephanie Zvan, does not meet any reasonable definition of a cyberstalker or bully, so I directly challenged johngreg’s assertion, and we discussed this at length in later comments.

As for Rebecca Watson…firstly, what you’re describing (even though you’re wrong about it, which I will get to in a minute) is a distraction, not a strawman. A distraction is when you shift to a different topic out of the blue. A strawman is when you try to pass off a facile caricature of someone’s argument off AS THEIR STATED ARGUMENT. I never claimed johngreg advanced any of those things as his argument (nor does that even make any fucking SENSE that he would?!), so it is not in any way a strawman.

So, congratulations, Duroth! You’ve just joined the legion of pseudo-skeptic internet commenters who cry “strawman” when they see an argument they don’t like, but have no idea what a strawman is!!

….slow…..clap….

Now, to what you actually meant to be an accusation of a *distraction* (variant, “derailment”):

What you fail to realize is that johngreg’s entire stated REASON it was inappropriate to invite Rebecca Watson was that she is

a woman whose primary form of debate is to belittle, demean, insult, and dismiss anyone who holds opinions contrary to her own

johngreg introduced this into the discussion and it was the sole initial basis for his argument that Watson did not belong on the panel. I countered this by pointing out that it is not necessarily wrong to belittle, demean, insult, and dismiss–it depends on what you’re dealing with. This is how we deal with creationists all the time, because they’re simply beneath our notice and their arguments are hopelessly stupid. Moreover, I pointed out that this was not, in fact, about “anyone who holds opinions contrary to her own”: rather, the insults and dismissals were directed at claims that were ludicrous and deserving of ridicule, NOT constructive, legitimate, defensible positions, and I gave an example of just such a ludicrous position, and a very common one. The silliness of the argument is THE REASON why I maintain it is defensible (even praiseworthy) to mock it, so it is not a red herring but necessary to inform our assessment of whether or not Watson is right to dismiss it.

I was showing that johngreg was being dishonest in his characterization of Watson, since ‘she ridicules anyone who disagrees with her!’ sounds horrible, but all he really has evidence for is ‘she ridicules ridiculous people and their ridiculous arguments!’ which most people actually don’t find remotely objectionable.

p.s.: Are you really claiming that summary is “unverified”? Dude, it was all OVER the comments to her first YouTube video about this. In fact, here is one from only 22 hours ago:

It seems﻿ her advice is designed to do nothing more than prevent single men from ever finding a mate. It seems her advice is designed to screw over people who follow it. It seems passive aggressive and misleading or she totally lacks theory of mind. Its like telling people not to apply for jobs and go live in a dumpster. That why its so insidious. (emphasis mine}

First of all, Dame, i’m not a sorry idiot, i’m really a happy idiot.
Second, if your read again my second post in this thread, you will see i didn’t argue that you didn’t address weather the Schrodinger’s Panelists[Trade Mark] are in fact Internet Bullies or not, but instead i argued that you didn’t touch on the morality of three wolves preaching dietary habits to sheep.
Third, when instead of arguing for or against the presence of Mrs Rebecca Watson in the panel you argue against skeptical elevator endemic pick up artists, you are actually arguing against a straw man.
Fourth, i see no reason to add into conversation the image of slowly onset gonorrhea.
Fifth, my first and second post in this thread made no character judgement on Mrs Rebecca Watson, but seeing that you insist on bringing her up, from what i heard in the video as stated by Rebecca Watson herself, she doesn’t answer any critic with a counter-retort and instead resorts to memes, phallic ASCII renders and other seasoned paraphernalia. The way she handles twitter banters criticizing her (again, by her own account) is far from constructive response to criticism.
While i’m not her biographist, based on what she herself describes in this video as her habits at handling criticism, i’ll have to conclude that while it may be possible that this all started with her being trolled and bullied, at this moment she’s a troll, and a bad one at it, and johngreg’s characterization of her online persona is at least partially right, with the “insult” and “dismiss” parts proven as undoubtedly true.
You next argue that what she does in reaction to her detractors in fine because we do it with creationists because they [too] are simply beneath our notice and their arguments are hopelessly stupid. That’s appeal to common practice, composition and division in one nice little package. Again, you, Dame, are a gentlewoman and a scholar.
The next gem is a tearjerker that i really respect: “but all he really has evidence for is ‘she ridicules ridiculous people and their ridiculous arguments!’ which most people actually don’t find remotely objectionable”. On the one hand sweeping generalization, on the other hand a really, really disrespectfull[sp?] procedure. Mock the idea, not the one who expresses it. Explain why the idea it’s wrong and if he still keeps it as true, mock on. Doing otherwise will escalate into a habit, then into a habit addiction, which actually is not far of what Mrs Watson is describing.
Let me show you an example. In the ending of your post you cite a(as in one) comment on youtube as proof that your characterization of all of Mrs Watson critics is true and finish by asking “How the fuck is my characterization inappropriate?!”.
To that i respond, trying to explain to you that your assertion is not that believable and my in fact be very wrong: “Elevator endemic pick up artists?”. Now you either understand that the main beef between Mrs Watson and her detractors is not her declaring the elevator as a “no pick up area”, and that one (or three, or one hundred) internet accounts declaring that is more than certain a trolling campaign, or you don’t understand that, which may or may not prompt me to ridicule your sense of reality.

I cannot link here — links seem to put a post into permanent moderation. But if you go to Stephanie Zvan’s blog, and look for the blog titled An Auspicious Beginning (and the one titled Is Cyberstalking Abuse), you will get a sense of what I am talking about. In the former post, Zvan admits to joining Laden in a letter writing campaign to have Abbie Smith’s blog shut down because she, Zvan, does not like some of the language used in the blog. That perfectly fits Zvan’s own definition of cyberstalking.

As for the Watson comment, I am not so stupid as to think that her response to the kind of comment you posted is wrong. I am talking about her general response to even simple and basic disagreement with her general philosophy, to which she almost invariably responds with hostility, insults, and dismissal.

All you need do to find the truth of that is peruse the Skepchick blog and find any post where a poster disagrees with her. On the few instances where she actually responds, the response is almost invariably as I decribe.

1) It’s dishonest of you to say Zvan “admits” to an action because this implies reluctance to disclose and/or guilt, and as such is a thoroughly inappropriate term to describe behavior undertaken in an open, above-board, intentional manner and enthusiastically announced. Furthermore, to call taking action against real cyberstalking and online bullying, and pointing out that threads are in fact opposed to the code of conduct of an organization that hosts them is not, by any possibly definition, “cyberstalking.” It is accountability to the terms of service claimed by the website provider. Moreover, since people have been the victims of threats and harassment originating from the slimepit, it is an appropriate precaution to alert the hosts of the site regarding its content. Your claim that linking to a publicly-available blog post constitutes “stalking” is absolutely laughable, and shows a disgusting and dishonest false equivalence in trying to distract from people who are actually enduring real cyberstalking (threats to their safety, home addresses being published, etc.)

2) I read Skepchick daily and I have seen no evidence of what you describe. Those she criticizes are invariably clueless, self-entitled and full of dishonest characterizations of feminism and/or recent events. Not to mention, her “general philosophy,” as you say, is basically Feminism 101, which is that women deserve to be treated equality with men socially, legally, politically, and morally, from which inevitably follows that treating women like sex objects and ignoring their stated concerns is unacceptable. So, any disagreement with such a philosophy BY DEFINITION means the disagreer is a sexist ass. If you think she gave someone an unduly abrupt treatment on a debatable point, you’re going to have to find an example (preferably with some way for me to google it and/or the comment ID) and make an argument as to why that point should actually be debatable.

Unfortunately you have now opened yourself up to a torrent of abuse from people who appear to be consumed with utter hatred for anyone who dares question their precious philosophies (remarkably similar to evangelical Christians).

Did it ever occur to you that there might actually be different levels of certainty appropriate for the following positions:

1) A woman made from a man’s rib who ate an apple on the advice of a talking snake doomed humanity to an eternity of suffering from which God redeemed us by sending himself as his son to be tortured and executed and then resurrected.

2) Sexual assault happens and it’s wrong, so you are responsible for making sure you have enthusiastic consent for whatever you do with another human being.

Well, I guess that since you’ve made an incredibly witless change to my screen name, all my points must be refuted!

Look, you can’t go around saying “nuance!” and expect people to treat you like anything other than a four-year-old who has learned a new word. I specifically asked you to provide an example of a point you thought was debatable–that would substantiate your claim of “nuance” and then we could discuss further. If you can’t actually do that, there isn’t actually “nuance,” there is just pathetically trying to elide the nasty implications of an odious position.

…because the way you post, there are only two kinds of shades to johngreg. One where you are right, and the other where everyone else is wrong who disagrees with you. It’s funny how that works that way. Perhaps it goes with the old saying of when you’re doing the finger pointing, there’s 3 pointing back at you. /shrug

Also note: You shouldn’t be tweeking your name in the hopes of squeeking out a comment on many of the blogs you have been banhammered and/or red flag on. It’s called morphing. And it’s not appreciated amoungst honest posters. Just saying.

I read some of the youtube comments before watching the video so I was expecting a very controversial discussion. Now that I’ve seen it I am amazed at the negative reaction. When this is the top voted comment…

“Wow this does﻿ for feminism what the Westboro Baptist Church does for Christianity.”

It isn’t trolling when someone posts views that differ from your own, otherwise most people on this planet are trolling me 24/7. If he (assuming gender here) had made a comment that was obviously inflammatory and clearly espoused a view that no sane human could possibly ever take, then maybe. But he didn’t. It’s a reasonable comment to make and he called the situation as he saw it. He could, of course, be wrong, but that is neither here nor there when bandying about accusations of trolling.

Hope that cleared things up (unless you’re a very clever troll… just kidding)

I encourage you to watch the video. Everyone was very soft spoken. Hearing them talk about the harassment they have received really personalizes the issue. The stuff Heina said about people confronting her family in real life is important enough that everyone should hear it.

Have you watched the video? That first johngreg post clearly fits the definition they give of a troll. The intent is not to engage in a conversation by giving a different opinion but clearly to discredit the people in the video to shut them up.

“The intent is not to engage in a conversation by giving a different opinion but clearly to discredit the people in the video to shut them up.”

Actually, as was fairly clearly stated in my initial comment, the point was to ask Cristina if she thought it ironic, or worse, that the panel on trolls and Internet bullying had two known cyberstalkers / bullies on it.

That was the intent of my comment. And, if Cristina replies, then that is engaging in conversation. And there was no intent to discredit, without cause, or to shut anyone up.

But your definition of “cyberbullies” is so flagrantly, pathetically dishonest that it is antithetical to engaging in genuine conversation. Moreover, when called on it, you just changed a word in my screen name and utterly failed to address any substantive points I made about why your characterization was grossly incorrect and apparently willfully dishonest.

LSP, the main reason I am not providing you with the kind of proof you claim to want is because in regards to Watson, you are clearly going to defend her regardless of what I present, in part because you find her style of bullying to be entertaining and justified. You are, in my opinion, a dogmatic ideologue.

As for Laden, perhaps you are unaware of his various acts of cyberstalking and bullying, but the following link (add your own http stuff) is a good place to statrt:

And, in regard to Zvan, if you read her cyberstalking article, and still think she does not meet her own definition of cyberstalker, then it is more than clear that you are ideologically blinded to reality:

2) I have specifically refuted your ludicrous claims agains Zvan, and you haven’t actually countered them, you’ve just repeated the same links, again utterly failing to realize that holding a publicly-available website accountable to its host’s stated terms of service is in no way stalking.

3) “I’m not going to substantiate my claims because you’re just unfairly opposed to me” is the kind of shit psychics and homeopaths say. If you had a reasonable argument to make against Watson, you would have made it by now, rather than playing that tired old false equivalence that calling out bullshit is apparently the same as bullying in your warped view. If that’s the best you can do, admit you’re trolling and fuck off.

If women do not want to be treated as ‘sex objects’ by men, then why do a lot of them spend so much time on looking good and sexy? Obviously, there is a contradiction here. Otherwise, the best way to avoid being treated as sex objects … is to stop being sex objects. Simple.

But then, maybe I was talking about **ordinary women**, and not the ones in that video, which has been recorded by a drunk camera man from the deck of a small boat. Honestly, has anyone ever treated Rebecca Watson as a sex object?

A lot of women ‘spend so much time on looking good and sexy’ because they live in a deeply misogynistic society which promotes the idea that women must look ‘good and sexy’ in order to have value.

Congratulations on talking like an ignorant fuckwit on the internet! Bonus points for insinuating RW is ugly and therefore not worth listening to! Right after the part where you also recommend women should look less beautiful if they want to be listened to! Kahfre for president of logic! Kahfre is the best rational thinker ever!

A lot of women ‘spend so much time on looking good and sexy’ because they live in a deeply misogynistic society which promotes the idea that women must look ‘good and sexy’ in order to have value.

True, up to a certain point, but in the end, there is nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with it, because the same society also puts the equal amount of pressure on men to make them act and behave in certain ways. Your objection made sense if you also took into account the problems men have to face due to the demands of the society they live in; Or, if men were absolutely free to do whatever they liked and were in absolute control of every aspect of the society, which sadly, they aren’t.

As for women getting raped, it is sad indeed, but I can assure you a comparison can be made here. Compare the women who get raped with the men who get killed in wars, who return home traumatized from wars, and who die as fire fighters, as police officers, etc. Don’t treat these men as heroes. Treat them as **victims.**

So, women are not victims, just because they are women. Victims and villains come in both genders.

Congratulations on talking like an ignorant fuckwit on the internet! Bonus points for insinuating RW is ugly and therefore not worth listening to! Right after the part where you also recommend women should look less beautiful if they want to be listened to! Kahfre for president of logic! Kahfre is the best rational thinker ever!

Sorry! That was an inappropriate comment indeed. But I perhaps never wanted to imply that Ms RW was ugly. My comment had more inclination toward her being ‘not a sex object’ purposefully, as opposed to being a sex object purposefully (as a lot of women are).

You fail to realize that “the demands men face” overwhelmingly get them social, economic, and political privilege, whereas women are caught in a double bind.

Moreover, every feminist I know is also strongly anti-war and would dearly love to see people of all genders no longer subjected to the violent, dehumanizing, and and traumatizing treatment we put soldiers and their families through. If you were genuinely concerned about men’s welfare in combat zones, as opposed to trying to score cheap points against women, you would realize the vast majority of feminists are your allies in this cause and that you could mutually support each other’s different foci in making the world a better place, because it is not a zero-sum game.

You fail to realize that “the demands men face” overwhelmingly get them social, economic, and political privilege, whereas women are caught in a double bind.

Oh yes. I agree wholeheartedly. Maybe it was a genuine struggle in the beginning, which achieved a lot of good things for women, but it now looks nothing more than a fad and a trend these days. And guess what? This struggle has no logical end to it, because upon achieving a certain level, these struggling women are going to realize that men have now reached to an upper level, and on and on it goes with no end in sight! So, in this struggle, men will always have an upper hand here, because it is ultimately men who define what ‘social, economic, and political’ privileges are, and they will just keep redefining them for these struggling women! Women can simply choose to refuse to accept this purely masculine definitions of ‘social, economic, and political privilege’, and try to come up with their own definitions of privileges. But they can’t, and they won’t, because they will always follow men in their struggle to be free from men’s authority! There’s a paradox here!

For me, being excused from jobs like fire fighting, (real) policing, and hard labours are all privileges that women get simply for being women. Why, wouldn’t you call them ‘privileges’? If a woman shouts I can be a fire-fighter and fight like a man does … she is simply saying I can be a man! Which isn’t true, for good or for worse.

Moreover, every feminist I know is also strongly anti-war and would dearly love to see people of all genders no longer subjected to the violent, dehumanizing, and and traumatizing treatment we put soldiers and their families through. If you were genuinely concerned about men’s welfare in combat zones, as opposed to trying to score cheap points against women, you would realize the vast majority of feminists are your allies in this cause and that you could mutually support each other’s different foci in making the world a better place, because it is not a zero-sum game.

I agree. But ‘War’ was just an example I gave to illustrate the point that there are certain roles in every society which only men can do, and only men must do. And this translates into privileges for women, because these roles can quite often result in death, physical as well psychological injury, and lots of other unwanted things. Women are naturally excused from these roles, and are deeply happy about it. I guess this is where no feminism supporter would agree with me.

Kahfre, your comment is a disgusting insult to the women who are kept out–either by policy or harassment–from jobs like firefighting, policework, and military service. These are not “privileges” that women enjoy in not being “expected” to perform these roles, this is discrimination that is keeping many women out of their preferred line of employment. It is also ignorant, revolting, and bigoted of you to assume that bravery and service to the public must be masculine, or that a woman could not be true to her real self and have those traits AS A WOMAN.

I also don’t see how you can so blithely say that the political, social, and legal landscape must, inherently, be defined by men. It is one thing to object to how they currently ARE dominated by men, but it is quite another to assume that this is an essential state of nature.

Kahfre, your comment is a disgusting insult to the women who are kept out–either by policy or harassment–from jobs like firefighting, policework, and military service. These are not “privileges” that women enjoy in not being “expected” to perform these roles, this is discrimination that is keeping many women out of their preferred line of employment. It is also ignorant, revolting, and bigoted of you to assume that bravery and service to the public must be masculine, or that a woman could not be true to her real self and have those traits AS A WOMAN.

No, I am simply saying that men can perform these roles better than women can, and this is why these roles naturally suit men — much more than they suit women. Women can choose to do these roles all they want, but they will never ever be able to compete with men, because, like I said, men are naturally suited to do these roles, and women aren’t. Just like no man can ever be as good a mother as a woman can be, and no woman can ever be as good a father as a man can be. See? Nature has made two different sexes, and then made very different roles for these two sexes.

So, basically, this so-called struggle for equality is a useless struggle. It’s a struggle against facts and reality.

I also don’t see how you can so blithely say that the political, social, and legal landscape must, inherently, be defined by men. It is one thing to object to how they currently ARE dominated by men, but it is quite another to assume that this is an essential state of nature.

I am not sure if this is what I said. I am saying, men have been defining these standards, they are defining these standards, and they will continue to define these standards. Women in their struggle to get equal to men are merely trying to conform to these men-made standards, instead of coming up with their own standards. And, as such, these struggling women will never reach a state of equality, because men will keep redefining their standards, and these women will keep conforming to those standards. Men will always have an upper hand.

So, what seems a likely way to reach equality is if women dared to define their own standards. Is it really that hard to see?

No, I am simply saying that men can perform these roles better than women can,

Citation needed, you filthy sexist asshole.

and this is why these roles naturally suit men

Citation fucking needed, douchebag.

— much more than they suit women.

Citation very fucking needed, asshat.

Women can choose to do these roles all they want,

Well I’m glad that’s not patronizing at all….bleaghgchghch!!

but they will never ever be able to compete with men,

Citation motherfucking needed, pompous dipshit.

because, like I said, men are naturally suited to do these roles, and women aren’t.

You know, your saying something doesn’t make it true. This is called argument from assertion, and it’s fucking bullshit.

Just like no man can ever be as good a mother as a woman can be,

If you mean that a man cannot push a neonate through his vagina, I will agree with you, except for the fact that this ignores the existence of non-op transgender men. I assume, however, you are implying something else about motherhood…in which case, make a substantive claim and provide evidence.

and no woman can ever be as good a father as a man can be.

Are you talking about sperm? How exactly is one “good” at ejaculating sperm? Is a father who conceived his child via IVF a less “good” father than one who knocked up a teenager at prom? What other activities of a father are even remotely constrained by gender? What can a father do that a mother can’t? Provide evidence or shut the fuck up.

See?

A monosyllabic rhetorical question does not an argument make.

Nature has made two different sexes, and then made very different roles for these two sexes.

There is a reason the Naturalistic Fallacy is a named fallacy–because it is totally devoid of intellectual merit!

Also, you seem to be personifying nature, and/or ascribing agency to it–what the fuck is up with that?!

So, basically, this so-called struggle for equality is a useless struggle.

Name me a single social justice movement that didn’t have a wide array of privileged pompous asses insisting it was a useless struggle. Go ahead. Try–I will find your pathetic flailing amusing.

It’s a struggle against facts and reality.

You know, you can’t just unilaterally declare something to be “facts and reality” with nothing but your own say-so and expect a bunch of skeptics to give you the time of day!

I am saying, men have been defining these standards,

No argument here.

they are defining these standards,

We know. That’s what we are active in changing.

and they will continue to define these standards.

Citation very much fucking needed, motherfucker!

Women in their struggle to get equal to men are merely trying to conform to these men-made standards,

You have not defined what standards you mean. You have also provided no evidence that any of these standards are exclusively male, as opposed to generically human.

instead of coming up with their own standards.

Why do I get this faint whiff of separatism? Why would genders need their own standards? Haven’t we pretty well established that “separate but equal” is not, you know, equal?!

And, as such, these struggling women will never reach a state of equality, because men will keep redefining their standards,

Again, your argument would be immensely improved by actually articulating what the fuck you mean by “standards.” Moreover, you have failed to address the possibility that some standards of behavior might be intrinsically beneficial for a society and therefore unwise to change. You also fail to address the possibility that other standards might be intrinsically harmful for a society and will benefit both men and women by being abandoned. You also fail to address the fact that not all men see themselves in opposition to women, and many are committed to sexual and gender equality for the happiness of themselves and their families.

and these women will keep conforming to those standards.

You haven’t seemed to address the easily-observable phenomenon that the more women are able to participate in the economic, social, and political advancement of our society, the more women are becoming more and more instrumental in shaping the standards by which we live. The recent success of adopting anti-harassment policies should be a fairly good indication of that, as a readily available example.

Men will always have an upper hand.

I’m not sure it this is Argument From Assertion or just Wishful Thinking, so I’m going to hereby name it Argument From Wishful Assertion.

So, what seems a likely way to reach equality

What, exactly, do you mean by equality, since you’ve just spouted a bunch of empty assertions insisting (utterly without evidence) that women can’t do a variety of things as well as men?

is if women dared to define their own standards.

What does “dared to define” even MEAN, anyway?! Is it really “daring” to give up on equal access to the careers, social spaces, and respect to which men are currently privileged over women? Is it “daring” to retreat into a separate corner and define success separately from an already-established society that HAS WHAT WE WANT?!

Is it really that hard to see?

I don’t know about “hard to see,” but I do declare it “hard to reason with,” because your whole argument has been nothing more than lazy assertions and gender-essentialist bullshit that have been torn down in every decently-controlled psych experiment and severely challenged by the dramatic changes in gender roles we’ve seen in only a century or so, so I’m not going to expend much effort trying to “see” something you’ve given me no reason to believe is there.

In conclusion, Kahfre’s post so beautifully illustrates the core reason I believe the atheist/skeptic movement needs to take social attitudes about gender roles seriously: sexism represents an utterly irrational, unsupported warping of one’s perception of the world, propped up only by empty assertions, wishful thinking, and logical fallacies, and comes from the same weakness of the mind that breeds homeopathy, bigfoot sightings, and conspiracy theories, and the intellectual rot that takes over the brain when consumed by sexism should be challenged and debunked just like other forms of mindrot.

I think now would be a perfect time to act upon the advice Don’t Feed the Trolls. So, you won’t be fed your food.

You made a number of totally unsupported assertions. I asked you for evidence. You have utterly, pathetically failed to provide it, and now you presume to lecture ME?! If you make assertions and refuse to provide evidence, that makes YOU the troll.

Now, back to where you belong, aka Pharyngula.

Aaaah, the tired old “You used a bad word so now I don’t have to listen to you!!!” Seriously–this makes you a weak-minded, juvenile idiot. It says nothing about my argument or about my challenges to your empty assertions. The challenge still stands whether or not it includes the word “fuck,” and I am a firm believer in openly expressing contempt for idiots who make unsupported assertions–it raises the social cost of your vapid, discourse-sabotaging behavior.

By the way, I share none of your wild fanatsies about women.

WHAT wild fantasies?! I’ve scarcely even made any claims! YOU have said that you think men are naturally better than women at some things (italics yours)–that is YOUR claim, YOUR fantasy, and thus YOUR duty to back up.

All I have said is that women have been successful in getting harassment policies implemented at cons–do you object to the veracity of this fact? I have said that women’s social and political roles have changed greatly over the past century with access to more opportunities–do you doubt the veracity of this fact? I have said that women face harassment in male-dominated fields–do you doubt the veracity of this fact? If not, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN by “wild fantasies”?

So, maybe it is you who is one giant bigot and sexist,

Wait, so I’m the one who is saying one shouldn’t make categorical judgments about the sexes without evidence, and somehow I’M the sexist?! How does that even make sense in your head, idiot?!

and thus see a reflection of yourself in every other man.

I literally have no idea what you’re talking about here. What do you mean by “every other man”? I explicitly acknowledged the contributions of men who contribute to the cause of gender equality, so where is this “every” bit coming from–what are you even trying to accomplish with it?! What do you even mean by “a reflection of myself”? All I’ve been doing is asking you for evidence for your assertions. Why is that a bad thing that I would even want to project onto others? In fact, I’d be fucking thrilled if people actually looked for evidence for their claims!

Oh, and another thing–you went on and on about “standards” and how they are inherently created by men and how women should “dare to define” their own…I asked you multiple times and you still failed to address: WHAT FUCKING STANDARDS?! What the fuck are you even TRYING to talk about? Didn’t anyone ever tell you how to define your terms, motherfucker?! You are trying to capitalize on vagueness, and that shit is not going to fly here!

PS Nice work LSP. I don’t think anyone going to get through to this one. The self-delusion is strong.

You know how the Germans are famous for making best machines in the world? Buy a German-made next time, instead of scoop buying those cheap ones from some Chinese shop. I have got one that was hand-crafted in Hamburg, and was specifically guranteed against such mishaps. This is why mine never breaks, even when you try to pull a stunt like the one I have quoted above in bold….

Yeah, Kahfre–anyone over the age of, say, TWELVE!! is knowledgeable enough to know that telling you to fuck off, and a rational argument as to why your reasoning is shit thereby necessitating your fucking-off, are not mutually exclusive.

If you can’t see rationality past a few choice words, that makes you a shallow, easily-distracted idiot and a tone troll.

By the way, there are several claims (by which I mean every single one you’ve made to date) for which you have still failed to provide evidence. You might want to get on that before you appoint yourself arbiter of what is or is not a rational argument!

There is something deeply wrong with your worldview if you cannot conceive of people expressing their sexuality in a happy, autonomous, self-fulfilling way, which is in fact the exact opposite of being a sex object, despite the fact that your shriveled, sex-negative brain insists on trying to force them into that mold. Sexy =/= sex object, and it’s high time you learned the difference.

I think he’s making a simpler argument. Something like – that woman over there at the conference, she looks good, and she’s only 20 feet away, of course I want to have sex with her.

If male arousal was based more on scent and pheromones, and less on sight, we could be having a different discussion. If there were consent signalling chemicals in the human body, then things would be more straight forward. Currently, if people are gazing around the room, and one is attracted to another, that has almost zero predictive value about whether the attraction is mutual. Sometimes, when we experience a strong feeling, its hard to believe that another person doesn’t catch ahold of and feel the same thing.

If male arousal was based more on scent and pheromones, and less on sight, we could be having a different discussion.

I don’t really think we’re talking about arousal mechanisms. I think we’re talking about privilege, a sense of entitlement and the relegation of women to the role of penis receptacles. Something like “that woman over there at the conference, she meets my standards of fuckability, and she’s only 20 feet away, of course I should be able to have sex with her.”

LSP’s response #4 is a point by point refutation of everything you said in comment #3, pointing out logical fallacies, assumptions, bad reasoning and, most of all, the lack of evidence that supports your opinions.

LSP’s response #4 is a point by point refutation of everything you said in comment #3, pointing out logical fallacies, assumptions, bad reasoning and, most of all, the lack of evidence that supports your opinions.

After which you started crying that LSP is a troll.

Sad. Really, really sad.

Really? Just like that?

OK, in that case consider LSP a victor. I am happy to concede. There. Now, would you ever find an opponent like me?

By the way, while you are at it, can you also prove to the audience that Plato was a better F1 driver than Michael Schumacher Or David Coulthard? I am sure, with your simple yet highly effective reasoning, you could prove anything. Anything from, our planet Earth has 100 moons, 1 visible and 99 invisible, to Uganda has a higher GDP per Capita than Switzerland.

‘It stands to reason’ is not evidence.
‘It’s obvious, really’ is not evidence.
‘[insert random self-affirmation of truth]’ is not evidence.

I saw you walked back (but didn’t apologise) and reworded the Rebecca Watson bit because you admitted being in the wrong. It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that I think you are worth talking to. However, it’s also the part of your drivel that rang the most alarm bells for you being a troll, since anyone unaware of Watson’s history would be very clueless indeed.

Why are you incapable of meeting our requests for evidence of your unsubstantiated opinions?

I saw you walked back (but didn’t apologise) and reworded the Rebecca Watson bit because you admitted being in the wrong. It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that I think you are worth talking to. However, it’s also the part of your drivel that rang the most alarm bells for you being a troll, since anyone unaware of Watson’s history would be very clueless indeed.

I am worthy of talking to because I said and reworded something about Ms R Watson? Really? And didn’t I say you had the power to pull any stunt and prove anything? Was I wrong? Haven’t you just proved that Uganda has a higher GDP per capita than Switzerland by proving that LSP refuted my arguments rationally?

Why are you incapable of meeting our requests for evidence of your unsubstantiated opinions?

Actually, I have explained that elsewhere before. Would you like me to repeat myself again?

I am worthy of talking to because I said and reworded something about Ms R Watson? Really?

It means she reasonably interpreted your reflection on the matter as contributing evidence that you were communicating in good faith, which thus resulted in a higher posterior probability that you would be worth speaking to. This is a perfectly logical assessment of a situation and very basic risk-benefit analysis which you could easily understand if you weren’t being so willfully ignorant! (I, on the other hand, thought you were just weaseling, which comes from a slightly more cynical interpretation of the limited data available, but which I think has been borne out by further communication with you.)

And didn’t I say you had the power to pull any stunt and prove anything?

Reminding you that you had unsourced assumptions in your post is not a “stunt,” nor is reminding you that your logical fallacies were appropriately exposed.

Was I wrong?

Yes. You are engaging in false equivalence. You are pretending that an accurate assessment of a debate performance that is amply supported by textual evidence is in fact equal to a far-fetched assessment at odds with the world. If you want to claim her assessment of our debate was far-fetched, you actually need to engage and provide evidence or an argument for that.

Haven’t you just proved that Uganda has a higher GDP per capita than Switzerland by proving that LSP refuted my arguments rationally?

DING DING DING!!! We have a triple logical fallacy winner! This suffers from False Equivalence, the Genetic Fallacy, and Denying the Consequent.

1) Implying that accurately pointing out that you have not provided evidence when asked and have not addressed any logical fallacies that were found in your post could somehow be the same as making implausible claims about national GDPs is nowhere near sound, unless of course you start with a premise that your argument is sound, and then assume any argument that refutes it must be ridiculous because your argument is sound, which is circular.

2) Acting like one argument from a certain source automatically makes another one true is an example of the Genetic Fallacy. This is made all the more ridiculous by the fact that you projected an absurd argument onto a source and then are trying to hold their other arguments accountable for the silliness YOU projected onto them!

3) Implying that because the GDP of Uganda can’t possibly be as high as that of Switzerland, and that this would be the result of reasoning that acknowledged you failed in the debate (via the genetic fallacy, as above), therefore must mean that because the GDP of Switzerland is higher than that of Uganda that you couldn’t possibly have failed in the debate, is an example of Denying the Consequent (even when what you assert as the consequent is plainly bullshit!). Arguments aren’t true or false depending on what you want the implications to be.

Yes. However, an explanation is not sufficient. It must have supporting evidence.

In my case, it is. Actually, it is well more than OK given the level of responses I have received here so far, and given how much you have supported your arguments with evidence, or even proper explanations. Don’t expect too much from me….I am not writing a thesis here for you to analyse and assess.

Khafre, you are just willfully refusing to acknowledge that you made claims and refused to back them up. This is ridiculously trolling behavior. We HAVE backed up our claims, and if anything was unclear, you could actually ASK in a way we could clarify, rather than simply declare that you refuse to understand anything.

“Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a postgraduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me.”

Be better than this. Find some evidence for your opinions. Try to avoid logical fallacies. This may help: yourlogicalfallacyis.com

I know, this is really, really hard for you to understand and digest, but sooner or later, somebody has to tell you and because I just like being a cruel asshole I’ll do it:
It’s not all about you.
Seriously.
It’s not your business what a woman does or wears, her reasons are her own and most of the time you don’t enter her considerations at all.

Funny how “friendly advice” has been given to all the new bloggers from the pz cult.

Friendly advice Criss, beware posting anything that upsets the local cult, they will flood your blog with screams of oppression, threaten, and attempt to get your blog shut down, there’s a very good chance you will be threatened with real bodily harm aswel, ask your fellow expert on anti harassment Greg Laden about that.

I don’t post at Pharyngula (which you’d know if you read it), mainly because people like you show up in any significant comment thread to successfully derail it into an endless series of false equivalences, bad analogies, red herrings, ad-hoc arguments, tone-over-substance whines, and just plain bigoted nonsense. Why PZ puts up with it I do not understand to this day.

One word – Money. More vitriol and drama = more blog hits = more money coming in from ads, etc. Simple profit motive. I suppose you can add ego into that, but why look for deeper motives when the simplest explanations work fine.

True, up to a certain point, but in the end, there is nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with it, because the same society also puts the equal amount of pressure on men to make them act and behave in certain ways.

What the fuckity fuck? False equivalence and claiming that two wrongs make a right. Seriously?

Let’s apply your ‘logic’ to another setting: women getting murdered is ok, because men also get murdered.

1. You’ve assumed that societal pressures on men are equal to the societal pressures on women. Which is a pretty big and bad assumption, about as stupid as saying that racism affects everyone equally. You’re not that stupid, are you?

2. You’ve said that if something bad happens to everybody, it’s therefore ok. Fucking what mcfuck? Where the fuck do you find these thoughts, and why the fuck would you write them somewhere they can be read?

You’ve assumed that societal pressures on men are equal to the societal pressures on women. Which is a pretty big and bad assumption, about as stupid as saying that racism affects everyone equally. You’re not that stupid, are you?

Why and how it is a bad assumption? Please expand on your assumption.

You’ve said that if something bad happens to everybody, it’s therefore ok. Fucking what mcfuck? Where the fuck do you find these thoughts, and why the fuck would you write them somewhere they can be read?

What I said was more along the lines that both genders have their privilages in their own ways. Women seem to be the **victims** here largely because of some overgrown sexually deprieved men trying their best to avail every single oppurtunity to victimize women, and in so doing, trying to project an image of the greatest champions of the feminist movement known to man. Do you disagree with this? Is victimizing women same as empowering them?

Women seem to be the **victims** here largely because of some overgrown sexually deprieved men trying their best to avail every single oppurtunity to victimize women, and in so doing, trying to project an image of the greatest champions of the feminist movement known to man.

What the hell are you talking about? Try to articulate more clearly whatever it is you are accusing whomever it is of.

Yeah, it’s fucking word salad. I have two possible interpretations that I debunk below…and those are the two most charitable, coherent readings of whatever the fuck he’s trying to say! And they’re still fucking bullshit!

I think when one’s brain is so addled with unexamined privilege, one even gets accustomed to not even having to examine the sentence structure one uses to defend that privilege!

Unfortunately, 97% of rapists never spend a day in jail. This is in the USA, one of the more progressive countries in the world. Please note, I don’t think the US is particularly progressive, just more than most.

Then there’s South Africa, which has some of the most horrifying rape statistics in the modern world. I could also provide evidence in the fields of health, education, employment or whatever. But now it’s your turn.

Please, provide some evidence for your assumption that gender discrimination affects both men and women equally.
(I expect your evidence to include enough detail to show that you understand the history of the suffragette movement, the history of sectarian and secular oppression of women through education, and the difference between a patriarchal and a matriarchal society. For starters.)

As to the rest, as Forbidden Snowflake said, it’s a mess of words and doesn’t make any sense. Rephrase it.

You seem to be making a leap from ‘sexual harassment is predominantly a problem of men harassing women’ to ‘every woman is claiming victim status’. No one else is. You’ll need to justify that logic, because it’s a non sequitur.

LOL, Suido!
Like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the Republican Party’s strategy team, Feminists think if they repeat those lies about one in six women being raped and 3% of rapist going to jail often enough they’ll become true.
Both are long-standing feminists myths. Ideologues are the same, whether on the right or the left.

That’s awesome! Someone refers to a statistic and offers supporting evidence from the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the World Health Organization et cetera. You flounce into the thread two weeks later, laugh at them, wave your hands around comparing all feminists to Limbaugh and Faux News, announce that the whole (well supported) thing is “a myth” and offer as supporting evidence… nothing. Nothing at all.

Nathair, please show me the research showing that 97% of rapists never spend a day in jail. Or admit that this is a lie perpetuated by Feminist mythology. One of the two, you have been challenged to support this stat.

No, it was not. You provided a link to a website which cited studies I HAVE reviewed, and which do NOT support, in any way, the statement that 97% of rapists never spend a day in jail.
This is a lie, plain and simple.

You two appear less familiar with the concept of “Burden Of Proof” than William Lane Craig.
As I pointed out, the RAINN article did NOT provide any direct links. It did not even cite actual research results.

For instance, there is no “Justice Department, National Crime Victimization Survey: 2006-2010″ report.
Those were surveys. Reports were based off of those surveys. Show me the one which states that 54% of rapes do not get reported to the police. Show me, even, how they can ever know what percentage “aren’t reported”? That is a totally ridiculous statement, and typical of the type of stats you’ll find on the rainn website.
Where, for instance, does rainn figure in the rate of false rape reports in its estimate?
So…ASSUME that only half of rapes are reported…
ASSUME that all the claimes are legitimate…
ASSUME that each rapists only committed a single rape…
ASSUME that those who did not receive a felony conviction walked free…
ASSUME that those not convicted of rape did not do time on a lesser, more easily proven charge…
…and VOILA! You have a created a feminist myth.

You feminists are as ignorant of your own mythology as christians are of theirs.

There. I’ve done my homework. I checked out the BJS website.
Now its time for you two to put up or shut up.

If you really cared, instead of just trying to derail, you could read the Justice Dept. reports. We’ve given you plenty of direction to verify the stats. You haven’t cited any counter-evidence, you’ve just stuck your fingers in your ears like a climate change denier. You’ve just declared that things were “assumed” without actually looking into the statistical methodology provided in the reports.

You sound just like a creationist who simply refuses to read a university biology level textbook, claims to understand it, and then wants to throw the whole load of evidence out because you don’t like it, and then whine that the established consensus has not met your “burden of proof” when you have done nothing but rank denialism.

The figure is the result of multiplying the probabilities of each level of the causal chain necessary for a rapist to go to jail. Each probability is cited in the appropriate reports. If you actually cited the wording and statistical methodology of the report and detailed exactly what you think is wrong with it, I might give you some more credence, but right now you just sound like a creationist nutter who is too lazy to learn the science behind evolution, and then simply tosses out offered resources as being tainted for being “Darwinist.”

And there’s the money shot. It was beautifully projected before, but here’s the bald admission. You see, for actual skeptics belief is based upon the evidence (like the wealth of data we pointed you to) for scare-quote “skeptics” like climate denialists, creationists, anti-vaxxers and, well, you, belief is based upon ideology. You find these facts unbelievable not because you’ve consulted the data (something you refuse to do) and found some sort of flaw or error but because you are a Not-a-feminist and therefore can not accept these facts. You are a True Believer.

You should do what clever True Believers do, find some trivially arguable point or alternate “theory” to promote. That way, instead of blundering into a thread or discussion and braying “It’s all lies and yer all stooopid if you b’leeve it!” you would appear to have considered the actual evidence. You know, like those creationist Flood believers and their “hydrological sorting hypothesis.” At least they have realized that the facts need to be addressed, not just waved away.

“The figure is the result of multiplying the probabilities of each level of the causal chain necessary for a rapist to go to jail.”
…and it is the basic statistics that I want to see proved. Not “multiplying”. Duh.

The RAINN website does NOT cite a report. It cites a “survey”, which on the Justice Department website merely lists the questions that were asked. WHERE ARE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONCLUSIONS TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM????

“Each probability is cited in the appropriate reports.”
Then simply give me a link to an actual report.
Or, more likely, fail yet again to meet your burden of proof…

Go find it yourself, motherfucker. You have more than enough lead info to find the stats of the cited reports–there will be the survey questions themselves and the results of the survey and the statistical analyses–just explore some links. I, however, am not going to waste my time trying to educate an ideologically-batshit-crazy asshole. It’s just not worth my time, any more than I would go through pubmed spending hours citing genome analyses for some petulant little creationist.

Here’s one, now fuck off and stop wasting my time. Go under the “victims” tab and search by crime event, look up arrest rates, look for law enforcement. But we’re not going to bend over backwards for your denialism.

Yes, there is a victims tab–it’s midway on the left of the Justice Dept’s statistics homepage. There is also a search box on the upper right. And if you don’t like the way the Justice Dept’s webpage is set up, I suggest you contact their webmaster, instead of railing against random commenters on an unrelated forum!

No. There is no Victims tab on the link you sent. There is not link to a statistics homepage.
Is it not possible for you to actually provide the link directly to the evidence you are citing, and state specifically what that evidence is?
Is this REALLY that difficult for you?
It is NOT my job to go searching for evidence which I do not even believe exists.

No, you idiot–it’s the tab on the Justice Dept. homepage that was referred to in the first post you decided to quibble about. You said you read it, so you shouldn’t find this so difficult to figure out that a reference to the Justice Dept. website is not going to be found on a link to the FBI website, because those are different things. This is not difficult, and frankly we’re not going to waste our time going over links to common knowledge with you, any more than I will spend hours looking up primary-source physics of combustion treatises to appease a 9-11 truther!

LOL! So you just spent the time to write that post…yet another in a long series of contentless paragraphs, and you STILL couldn’t take the time to post a simple link to the research you are citing, and a brief description of what you think it says.
Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic…..

Cristina – previous version of this post is in moderation, I assume due to links. Can be deleted, kthanks

Why and how it is a bad assumption? Please expand on your assumption.

Oh, let me see, how about I refer you to the history of every patriarchal society in the world? Such as the USA, where 1 in 6 women will suffer an attempted or completed rape in their life, as compared to 1 in 33 men.*

Unfortunately, 97% of rapists never spend a day in jail.* This is in the USA, one of the more progressive countries in the world. Please note, I don’t think the US is particularly progressive, just more than most, especially when you consider pre-modern times.

Then there’s South Africa, which has some of the most horrifying rape statistics in the modern world. I could also provide evidence in the fields of health, education, employment or whatever. I have now expanded upon my assumption that your assumption of equality is bad. Now it’s your turn.

Please, provide some evidence for your assumption that gender discrimination affects both men and women equally.
(I expect your evidence to include enough detail to show that you understand the history of the suffragette movement, the history of sectarian and secular oppression of women through education, and the difference between a patriarchal and a matriarchal society. For starters.)

As to the rest, as Forbidden Snowflake said, it’s a mess of words and doesn’t make any sense. Rephrase it.

You seem to be making a leap from ‘sexual harassment is predominantly a problem of men harassing women’ to ‘every woman is claiming victim status’. No one else is. You’ll need to justify that logic, because it’s a non sequitur.

Then there’s South Africa, which has some of the most horrifying rape statistics in the modern world. I could also provide evidence in the fields of health, education, employment or whatever. I have now expanded upon my assumption that your assumption of equality is bad. Now it’s your turn.

I am not denying these facts. I never did. My argument was, sort of, many-dimensional.

One dimension, or aspect, of my argument was how to properly empower women in order to reduce such and similar incidences. I said, women cannot be empowered by how a large part of feminism-supporters today are trying to empower them — through victimization. Such attempts to empower them will only weaken them, by making them see themselves as victims. Did you read that bit?

The other aspect of the argument was that women, while generally considered suppressed as compared to men, still enjoy many privileges that men don’t, especially in western societies. For example, males can only dream about lodging a sexual harassment complaint against a woman, though it can and does happen –especially to underage boys. Did you read that bit?

And like I said, I can’t make myself more clear … You have two options if you find it difficult to communicate:

1) Victimization. You keep using dat word. I dunna thinkit means what you thinkit means.

2) I have already discussed multiple ways in which openly discussing the way women are victimized gives people strength to fight injustice and insight into what needs to be done. Also, if you watched the video, you would hear Rebecca et al talk about how sharing experiences of victimization and getting support from others is validating and provides the reserve of strength for future activism.

3) You have provided no evidence as to why “I was/am a victim of this bad shit” and “I am now going to do something to prevent this bad shit happening again to myself or others” could possibly be mutually exclusive.

4) Not all grievances about feminist issues necessarily cast the woman as a victim. Some, like rape and harassment do directly lead to someone being a victim, but a lot of sexist treatment we call out is just FUCKING ANNOYING, or systematically economically disempowering, but it doesn’t really shatter us so much as motivate us to fix it.

5) Actually, more and more departments, companies, and organizations are drafting gender-neutral harassment policies, and I frankly haven’t heard of a single third-wave feminist who would be opposed to recourse for people of all genders with regards to harassment. This does not, however, negate the fact that women currently experience the majority of harassment.

6) You’ve neglected option 4: tell you repeatedly that you are not being an honest player in the debate and insisting that you change your ways before your outbursts may be worthy of respect. This may involve swearing, depending on the personal taste of the speaker, but the point is to highlight the errors of your thinking, not just give up with silence or accept your bullshit. What insufferable entitlement that you think you can swan in here with NO FUCKING EVIDENCE and then expect us to “accept me as I am.” What you are is a worthless, thoughtless, factless troll who derails and denies instead of providing evidence for his shitty assertions.

It’s fucking rich that you’re asking people to expand on their assumptions when you have done no such thing when asked repeatedly. However, since (unlike you) our arguments are not full of shit, I will be happy to elaborate:

1) Women are vastly underrepresented in executive positions in major companies.

2) Women are vastly underrepresented in political office.

3) Women are under disproportionate pressure to sacrifice their own career ambitions for their families’ needs.

4) Women are dramatically more likely to have their appearance judged as an essential component to their worth.

5) Women’s bodies are legislated against and subject to invasive state-mandated procedures.

6) Women are routinely evaluated as less competent as men, even in controlled situations where competence is held constant. The same performance will be judged as higher quality when the evaluator does not know the author/performer/maker was a woman.

7) Women are held to a standard of beauty that is not only realistic, but will cause serious complications to many women’s health if they try to comply with it, often to the point of death (anorexia is the single most deadly mental disorder, and affects predominantly women).

8) Women are disproportionately expected to opt out of moving freely in society for fear of being raped.

9) Women are frequently punished socially, economically, and in some cases physically for being outspoken in personal and professional settings.

This list is by no means exhaustive.

See–this is how this works, idiot: someone asks for evidence, and a responsible person PROVIDES THAT EVIDENCE. You could learn a fucking thing or two from it!

What I said was more along the lines that both genders have their privilages in their own ways.

And you have failed to acknowledge that we–the people who actually have experience living as women–have told you that what you insist is a “privilege” is actually discrimination and is harmful to us.

Women seem to be the **victims** here largely because of some overgrown sexually deprieved men trying their best to avail every single oppurtunity to victimize women,

What do you mean by “victimize”? Do you mean rape, assault, and harass? Yes, because women ARE victimized in that way–when a group of people decide to hurt your group of people, you will end up being victimized. That is tautological. Moreover, that would not be “seeming” to be victims; that would actually BE being victims of rape, assault, and harassment. (“victimize,” verb: to single someone out for cruel or unjust treatment.) And, no, women are not victimized by men who are sexually deprived–rape is a crime of power, not sex, and men who have plenty of access to willing partners have still been known to rape (see Ben Roethlisburger and Roman Polanski, just for starters).

Or, are you simply misusing the word victimize and thinking that you can change the word into meaning casting a victim-like appearance where none exists? Well, firstly, get a dictionary, motherfucker…and secondly, you are completely and disgracefully ignoring the leading role WOMEN play in highlighting the causes and effects of their actual victimization, not to mention refusing to see women’s agency in addressing their own problems when their activism is staring you in the face, and (more importantly) that victimization is well borne-out by social science research and crime statistics.

And, if the latter interpretation was your intent, and you’re convinced men are only involved in feminism to try to get in women’s pants–well, sorry, but not everyone is as shallow as you apparently are, and moreover many men are committed to these goals because people close to them have been raped or abused, or they have a commitment to social justice that acts on multiple axes of inequality.

and in so doing, trying to project an image of the greatest champions of the feminist movement

“Known to man” is sexist–men are not a stand-in for all of humanity, and this relies on sexist assumptions that male is the default and women are an aberration. It is more accurate and appropriate to say “known to humanity.”

Do you disagree with this?

Vehemently, to the extent that it even makes sense. No, men do not lead the feminist movement. No, women do not need men to point out injustices against women–rather, we generally have an uphill battle explaining to men why certain norms are unjust (and sometimes we succeed! See: Crommunist). No, men do not only concern themselves with inequality when trying to get laid (in fact, many male allies of feminist causes are gay). No, instances of victimization don’t just spring into being when people talk about them.

Is victimizing women same as empowering them?

Well, literally, no–raping someone is not the same as empowering them, but that would be the meaning of that question if you actually understood basic English words. What you seem to mean: “is pointing out victimization of women the same as empowering them?” No, it is not exactly the same thing, but accurately characterizing a problem is a necessary first step toward solving any problem. No one needs to arbitrarily cast women into being victims, rather, women are speaking up FOR THEMSELVES saying that the way they are treated by society is unacceptable to them and that they would like to make it unacceptable for individuals and society to treat women the way they do. Realizing that subtle systemic problems exist means that people no longer have to internalize the guilt they feel for not embodying a certain patriarchal norm, and might realize where some of their dissatisfaction with careers/relationships/whatever is coming from and feel like they’re not alone and thus stronger and more eager to stand up to these problems. So, yes, validating the existence of maltreatment is very important for empowerment and for effecting positive social change.

I noticed your list of disadvantages that women suffer from contained no citations and ergo is not evidence by your own earlier logic.

Now, I agree that the figures I have seen in the past do actually back up your assertions. However, it is important to realise this is a complex issue and that data does not necessarily support your point. For example – ‘There are less women in executive positions’, this COULD (though I doubt) be due to a range of other factors such as ‘Women might be less inclined to desire those jobs or to engage in that job field’, or ‘Women tend to less frequently display personalities that are congruent with the personalities of those who do usually have those high-powered jobs’. Whilst these possibilities are slim, they may have been explored by psychologists and there may be more information available regarding those factors. If you’re intent on supplying an evidence-based argument then YOU need to find that research and the research that counters it, then explain in detail why and how they do this.

This creates immense problems for ‘winning’ arguments on a comment section as you can already see it would require you to write a detailed essay chock-full with endless citations and references to defend JUST ONE of those points. I know this from experience, simply stating these things without sources and without consideration of counter arguments and influencing factors will not pass muster from any sceptic or academic.

So, to engage in these kinds of mini-debates I feel it’s usually best to not press people for evidence on every single detail otherwise nothing will ever get said or done

You know full well that so many links would automatically get my post into moderation purgatory. My examples were remarkably uncontroversial assessments, and you even ADMIT that the probability of the counter-claims is vanishingly small (and there actually is a lot of good research on how women are passed over for promotions when they actively seek them, so your claim is at odds with the evidence!)

Not only that, but I can hardly anticipate every possible argument to every possible point, or the post would be a mile long and no one would want to read it. You are setting up ridiculous expectations and you know it. I was specific enough to start discussions, and used facts that are common knowledge. If you have a real question (not a “hypothetically someone could disagree with this and I’ll bring it up because I just want to score points!”), you can ask it and then we can move forward.

On the other hand, if we follow your ridiculous advice and just not ask for evidence, how the fuck can we maintain quality discourse AT ALL?! Moreover, the totally unsourced claims Khafre was making were completely at odds with the vast majority of modern social science research, thus making his claims extraordinary.

I wasn’t trying to set ridiculous standards, I was just making you aware of where I felt you were being slightly hypocritical in demanding evidence.

Whilst I agree that several of your points are common knowledge, I also feel that several of his earlier points were common knowledge (i.e. men could be seen as more naturally suited for police work, since they are ON AVERAGE taller and stronger due to slight biological differencs. And police require intimidating looking individuals and what not). However, you said that his claims were ‘unsourced’, this might be due to him having read some research which neither you nor I know anything about. What if someone didn’t know anything about the research which you say is common knowledge? Would they be justified in dismissing your claims as well?

Also I was unaware of the inability to post detailed sources and links on this forum, so hopefully you can forgive me that one point at least

The problem is, though, that there truly is no “natural” thing keeping a woman from being a front-line fighter in a war, a police officer, or a firefighter. It is largely a patriarchal societal thing, where women are seen automatically as lesser and incapable of performing activities – without their abilities actually being tested.

I work with law enforcement, and I have both men and women here at my job. I would trust every single one of those men – and every single one of those women – equally to be able to protect me should shit hit the fan. I see absolutely no reason to trust that the women I work with are not as good, not as strong, or not as intimidating, as the men (and to be honest, one or two of the women I work with are more intimidating than some of the men, and would likely kick my ass if I inferred they weren’t suited for the job.)

I know it’s an anecdote, but it’s a pointless exercise, since more and more governments and societies are recognizing that women are fully capable of holding the same jobs and same positions as men.

I wasn’t trying to set ridiculous standards, I was just making you aware of where I felt you were being slightly hypocritical in demanding evidence.

Fucking bullshit. You can’t claim hypocrisy without establishing equivalence. There is no equivalence whatsoever between referring to common knowledge and flatly declaring unsourced assertions that are counter to the consensus of the vast majority of sociology and behavioral science. The first doesn’t need evidence because if you cited every common fact that you could even imagine someone would quibble about, every comment would have to be a fucking dissertation. On the other hand, a statement that is in direct contradiction to the positions advanced by your opponent most definitely needs evidence because YOU ALREADY KNOW they don’t agree with it and it is your job to convince them, not just say it!

Moreover, when he challenged one of our assertions, no fewer than three of us STEPPED UP AND PROVIDED EVIDENCE! Clear, observable phenomena, well-accepted by anyone who’s not a blatant sexism denier, and in enough detail that one could understand the specific points we were communicating. He, on the other hand, NEVER provided evidence for any of his assertions, no matter how many times he was called on it.

I also feel that several of his earlier points were common knowledge

Nope, sorry, saying that certain genders are more suited for certain roles is not “common knowledge,” it is a “common sexist belief.” Remember that the definition of knowledge is “justified true belief.” If something is not true, it cannot be common knowledge.

(i.e. men could be seen as more naturally suited for police work, since they are ON AVERAGE taller and stronger due to slight biological differencs.

But that’s not what he said. He didn’t say that excelling at these roles is about a person being stronger, he said that a woman pursuing these roles is TRYING TO BE A MAN. He was therefore not simply talking about strength, he was talking about gender ROLES=about the character and social significance of the sexes (as he perceived them). He even explicitly said he was talking about “roles,” FFS! There is no earthly reason why being stronger than the average member of group A means you must be emulating the character and essential nature of group B–this doesn’t even make sense, so why are you trying to sanitize his argument to pretend it’s just about physiological differences?

Also, you failed to address in your pathetic excuse-making for Kahfre, that if this were just about ON AVERAGE (which you see fit to capitalize, even though you added this and it was never even implied in the argument beforehand) differences, why would this have any bearing whatsoever on who could “ever” do a job as well as someone from a different group–people are not averages, after all, they are individuals.

Furthermore, the idea that strength is the most important component in modern policework with its heavy involvement in vehicular chases and weaponry is just plain laughable. You look like you’re fishing for an excuse to maintain a gender role differentiation that is increasingly irrelevant in the modern world (not to mention, as the commenter with actual police experience has told you, your differentiations are just lazy, stereotyped, and ignorant).

And police require intimidating looking individuals and what not

The fact that women are perceived to be weak and non-threatening is a cultural construct and the result of cultural prejudices, not nature. Have you even considered how much popular media perpetuates the notion that girls aren’t really tough and need to be saved?! Furthermore, girls are trained not to be tough through marketing toward care-giving and grooming and other passive types of play, and face serious social ostracism through their formative years if they are perceived to be too tough. So, CULTURAL forces, not natural forces, are far more likely to play a significant role in women both appearing less tough and being socialized against trying to be tough.

However, you said that his claims were ‘unsourced’, this might be due to him having read some research which neither you nor I know anything about.

If that were the case, when challenged he could simply provide a citation to the relevant research. Would that be so fucking hard?! That’s why I didn’t say “I refuse to believe you!” I said “Citation needed” (and embellished as necessary). If he had a citation this could have been done hours ago.

(As a side note, this speculating about research “which neither you nor I know anything about” sounds a hell of a lot like those who try to explain away their god’s blatant failures in competence and/or morality with “we can’t know what God knows!”)

What if someone didn’t know anything about the research which you say is common knowledge?

Then I would provide a link or instructions on how to find that information, as appropriate. Why is that so fucking hard for you to grasp?

Would they be justified in dismissing your claims as well?

If I expected them to take my word for it that my research existed and provided no reason to believe that it did, then yes, they could dismiss my claim. But what you seem to be missing is WE AREN’T DOING THAT. We are referring to easily-verified information, described adequately for easy googling. A commenter above provided her source to the RAINN statistics. CITATIONS! How do you not understand what they’re for and why we use them?!

LSP, the main reason I am not providing you with the kind of proof you claim to want is because in regards to Watson, you are clearly going to defend her regardless of what I present, in part because you find her style of bullying to be entertaining and justified. You are, in my opinion, a dogmatic ideologue.
As for Laden, perhaps you are unaware of his various acts of cyberstalking and bullying, but the following link (add your own http stuff) is a good place to statrt:
… freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2012/07/04/greg-ladens-sometimes-the-bad-guys-win/
And, in regard to Zvan, if you read her cyberstalking article, and still think she does not meet her own definition of cyberstalker, then it is more than clear that you are ideologically blinded to reality:
1. … freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/06/28/is-cyberstalking-abuse/
2. … freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/07/04/an-auspicious-beginning/

1- I don’t know what your beef is with Rebecca Watson, but I see a similarity between you and virtually every one of her other detractors. You don’t give examples of her behavior you don’t like. Moreover, you’ve taken the message “Guys, don’t do that” and twisted it beyond what she even said it meant. What is your specific gripe against her? What has she said or done to you that leads you to believe she’s bullying? How do you define bullying?*
The same argument can be used about your opinion of Rebecca, btw. You’re attached to this notion that she’s a rude bully despite the fact that you’ve presented no evidence that she’s a bully. You haven’t given a coherent, fact based argument for why you don’t like her. You just run around saying she’s a mean bully and expect people to believe you. Perhaps when you have some kind of evidence (within the full context) people will believe you. As it stands, you’re whining about, well nothing.
2- I don’t know what you have against Stephanie Zvan, but you have serious reading comprehension issues. Taking you at your word that there was something hypocritical about her actions, I clicked both the links to Almost Diamonds. I read both the articles.
Nowhere in either of her posts does she cyberstalk anyone. Neither post shows her to be engaging in cyberstalking activities.** Her stalkers OTOH…

*this is a serious question because this damn word is getting bandied about so frequently by so many people who think “that person was rude to me” is bullying.

**If you think asking National Geographic to uphold their code of conduct is a form of cyberstalking, there’s nothing left to say to you.

You’ve assumed that societal pressures on men are equal to the societal pressures on women. Which is a pretty big and bad assumption, about as stupid as saying that racism affects everyone equally. You’re not that stupid, are you?

Why and how it is a bad assumption? Please expand on your assumption.

If you truly believe that the pressure on men in society are equal to the pressures on women in society, where is your proof of that?
You had to arrive at that conclusion based upon evidence of some sort. Surely you didn’t just think your experiences would provide a basis for making an assertion about the way the world works. If you are doing that, then you’re making a bad assumption.
You have an assumption about men and women that doesn’t bear out in reality. You can ask far too many women. Instead of approaching this as if you already *have* the answer, get out there an educate yourself. Ask yourself “are social pressures on men and women equal?” Use that as your hypothesis. Then get out there and test it. Don’t ignore the findings that contradict your initial belief. Research the damn issue before you speak about something you’re ignorant on.

This has been pointed out elsewhere, but having Greg Laden on that panel was the epitome of hypocrisy. I know he had been placed on the panel before his threats toward Justin Griffith happened, but he could have easily been removed and there would have still been a full panel.

His presence on the panel sends the signal loud and clear that the real message is that certain kinds of online behavior are harassment when used against them, but excusable if it’s done in their name.

For the record, the threat typed in the email Greg L. sent to Justin approximated “if you ever ask me to help you again, I’m going to kick your ass.” I agree it qualifies as a threat. It sounds like garden variety bravado to me. Bad, but not really reaching for and achieving heights of awfulness.

Yes. Laden was being a complete ass and what he did was absolutely not okay at all. I, too, question his inclusion in the panel. That does not diminish the fact that this was an incredibly good discussion.

He said he expected that that technique would be used against Justin by the people he was warning Justin about. I don’t think he was trying to trickily trigger him by talking about the possibility that someone else would look for an exploit him where he likely feels most vulnerable.

That was a bullshit panel discussion – I know I must be a troll right?@?

I think it was bullshit because of how personally many of the panelists took the comments from internet trolls. Watson talking about how it made her really upset and that they were particularly harsh…..no, trolls will pick whatever they think the person is most insecure about to pick on whether they are fat lard arses who obviously never get off the couch or white middle class males who wouldnt have a clue about the real world or ironically, nerds who only friends are fake online friends….its called the internet, Criss – your responses were the only ones that had some perspective on the issue, the rest seemed to take things out of context

I’m going to guess by your name that you’re a male. As a male, you might not realize the extent to which women are harassed in most online communities. As a male, you might not see the pattern of abuse that can be seen in communities as diverse as gaming and secularism. As a male, you might not have paid too much attention to how similar the reactions to Anita Sarkeesian’s proposed analysis of common female tropes in video games are to the reactions to proposed harassment policies at cons (you know, like the ones that even anime cons have…).

And just in case you can’t figure it out, here’s a breakdown:

Hysterical males screaming over what they see as an indictment of their gender and a move by fun-destroy “feminazis”** to invade traditionally male spaces. This is not “trolling” in the classic sense (you know, saying shit you don’t really believe just to stir the pot for “the lulz”), this is fear of change and irrational defensiveness.

**it has been amazingly amusing to see male “skeptics” use that term…since it was coined by one of the biggest mouthpieces for the religious right….but you know, hysteria ain’t really aware of irony like that.

Yes, because you are male you’re at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to understanding the level of harassment and abuse women receive online. You could remedy this disadvantage by listening to what women who have experienced abuse and harassment have to say – you know, instead of deciding you know better. You called the discussion “bullshit,” which means you didn’t listen, you made a decision based on your own beliefs instead of empirical evidence as represented by several prominent atheist bloggers.

In other words, people like you are akin to global warming denialists with no education in science – they don’t even know what CO2’s molecular geometry looks like, but they’re sure that their opinion is worth more or at least as much as the atmospheric chemist with whom they disagree.

Every comment you have made to me or anyone else that disagrees has been overly insulting – personally insulting and unconstructive. I understand that this may be an issue close to your heart but what you are doing right now is fighting against yourself. I watched the panel, I listened and you had an engaged free thinking male to communicate with and inform of your view point and what have you done with this oppertunity?

Insult and belittle him to make yourself feel better.

I have to go now, dinner etc, no im not hurt by your comments, its just one of hundreds of internet insults i and many others will receive this week. I hope you feel in better spirits soon

I’m not playing any card, its not a game of win or loose, its about how to have a constructive discussion and whilst I am open to new ideas and love to learn thats not what I am getting here.

What I get instead is a torrent of abuse stating that I cant understand sexual harrasment because I am male – there is a whole subset of sexism that is also directed at males, specifically gay males and this issue that they discussed was all based around internet trolls.

Sure do some internet trolls then take action outside of the internet? yes but it is a very small portion – based on the millions of internet trolls vs the thousands of crimes, and if internet trolls are the main concern then this talk should not be limited to how women get harrased on the internet.

I’m not entirely sure what yourself or moria disagree with, I personally didnt think the panel discussion was very good and felt their was lots of room for improvment.

This doesnt entail that I dont think sexual harrasment is an issue worth discussing as your responses seem to portray. My complaint was that it didnt go very in depth and a lot of the issues were trivial such as getting rape threats over the internet – yes rape threats are serious, however I receive rape threats all the time and death threats and people telling me to commit suicide and people just throwing angst at me because I have a subjective opinion that differs from their subjective opinion about how entertaining and informative a panel discussion was/is (See comments above)

Yes its a worthwhile topic of discussion, however I dont think they did it justice, I feel it would of had more impact if they had not focused on issues such as “I’ve had people over the internet tell me I just need a good fucking” – yes, as a gay male I get that all the time to.

My complain is that their are naunces and points of contention that could have been bought up but were not, the panelists all agreed on trivial issues the majority of us all agree upon.

So I guess, I’m unsure of what you think I havent gotten and the consistent theme, mainly from moria is that I dont get it because I’m a male – what dont I get? I agree sexual harrasment is a serious issue, I agree that generally women suffer worse from this ignorance than men do, on and off the internet, I just dont think the panel really did it justice.

but the comment from you is that “He must be right because ….uh….because he said so” – its not helpful and its blatently false, I gave my subject opinion on the panel – you gave yours, i didnt tell you that you think it was good because…uh….you said so – no obviously thats your opinion and you dont need to justify it, why do I need to justify mine? why am I such a horrible person because I thought the panel discussion was bullshit – I exlpained why I thought that, feel free to disagree but please dont throw out comments like “He thinks he is right because…uh…he said so” because it halts what could otherwise be a fruitful conversation – thats not a card, its not a game

You yourself took yourself out of any type of constructive discussion when you completely ignored the discussion of how human beings respond to harassment and their discussion of how repetitive and exhausting it gets, and why people have legitimate reason to worry that it’s more than just words, when you start off saying “I think it was bullshit because of how personally many of the panelists took the comments from internet trolls.” This shows you have completely committed to the naive and platitudinous “don’t feed the trolls” and are completely closed off to understanding what these people mean that these prejudices are how trolls really feel IRL.

whilst I am open to new ideas and love to learn

Because dismissing a panel out of hand as bullshit really shows that!

What I get instead is a torrent of abuse

You are getting criticism, not abuse. Learn the fucking difference.

stating that I cant understand sexual harrasment because I am male

The fact that you agree that gamer smack-talk is comparable to sexual harassment is a pretty good indicator that your lack of first-hand experience is causing you to be somewhat blinkered!

there is a whole subset of sexism that is also directed at males, specifically gay males

And do you shame these people when they talk about how it affects them and say they’re taking it too personally? If you do, what is your point in bringing it up? If you don’t, why do you think it’s okay to shame women for having a normal social response to harassment?

and this issue that they discussed was all based around internet trolls.

Yeah, sorry–not every panel discussion is about your needs. I hope you can manage an hour of not having your viewpoint front and center…

Sure do some internet trolls then take action outside of the internet? yes but it is a very small portion – based on the millions of internet trolls vs the thousands of crimes,

Are you even dimly aware of how the burden inherent in assessing a threat is exhausting, NOT that people are claiming they are likely to be in physical danger? Psychological health matters too.

and if internet trolls are the main concern then this talk should not be limited to how women get harrased on the internet.

I’m so sorry that for once your demographic wasn’t the focus of attention. I’m so sorry that the disproportionate harassment women receive on the internet means that an hour-long discussion didn’t cater to you.

I’m not entirely sure what yourself or moria disagree with, I personally didnt think the panel discussion was very good and felt their was lots of room for improvment.

I so totally see you as one of those office denizens who habitually fails to recognize an insight when it comes from a woman but will praise it when repeated by a man…

This doesnt entail that I dont think sexual harrasment is an issue worth discussing as your responses seem to portray.

Then why are you so determined to derail the discussion whenever you post?!

My complaint was that it didnt go very in depth

When your opening salvo is that these presenters are just wrong to take it so personally, you lose any claim to having any depth!

and a lot of the issues were trivial such as getting rape threats over the internet

If you think this is trivial, you are a deeply broken human being. Have some fucking empathy, douchebag! Did it ever occur to you that a significant percentage of the women getting these rape threats HAVE BEEN RAPED?! Did it ever occur to you that being the recipient of such hatred is especially triggering for them?

however I receive rape threats all the time

What you fail to take into consideration is that your prior probability of how serious someone is about this is dramatically lower than a woman’s prior probability. You don’t have to live your life with this being a real threat–we do.

I dont think they did it justice, I feel it would of had more impact if they had not focused on issues such as “I’ve had people over the internet tell me I just need a good fucking”

You are not the king of panels. Some people may be interested in focusing on different issues than you are.

yes, as a gay male I get that all the time to.

You are ignoring the experiences of countless women who describe the amount of harassment they receive increasing dramatically when they acknowledge their gender, and the experiences of men who are shocked to find out how much harassment they get when they choose a female avatar.

My complain is that their are naunces and points of contention that could have been bought up but were not,

So why not ADD TO THE DISCUSSION?! Leave a thoughtful comment that would advance discussion here to the next level, rather than just denigrate the whole idea of addressing the silencing of internet harassment. Don’t just say the word nuance and fail to provide anything thought-provoking!

the panelists all agreed on trivial issues the majority of us all agree upon.

This is blatantly untrue. First, read the YouTube comments and realize how far we are from widespread agreement on this issue. Second, YOU YOURSELF disagree with the premise of this talk by insisting that it’s weak to care about online harassment!

Michael raises a fair point IMO. As a veteran MMORPG player and general user of forums and commenter on videos I have received well over 1000 death threats, and easily several thousand more sexually-orientated harassments and comments.

You know how I feel about all those cruel and demeaning and violent comments? I feel fine. I literally don’t care if someone on the internet doesn’t like me. Hateful and angry comments tend to come out more freely on the internet due to a distancing from social embarrassment and over factors that influence behaviour. I recognize this and see the comments for what they are – fluff. No one really wants to kill me because I shot the mass of pixels which represents their ‘toon’.

The internet is an ENTIRELY different social system and can not be used to translate over to ‘real-life’ actions and problems.

Is this a case of people needing to develop a thicker-skin on the internet? Or is my skin simply too thick, am I out of touch with how normal people take internet insults?

If I took comments made out of frustration and rage seriously then I’d have to believe that an extraordinary amount of young men (and some young women) have has sex with my mother, as they so often claim.

So in my experience trolls are not a problem and easily ignored, they almost never have disrupted any debates I’ve been in.

I’ve played WoW since release, DAoC before that, and Ultima before that. I’m a veteran too. However, I’m not dull enough to assert that insults flung around during gameplay (especially pvp) are at all like the systematic attempts (often from prominent male atheists) to discredit and undermine the concerns of many female atheist bloggers/speakers.

I’m not sure why you would think that social movements, like secularism, could be compared to social games. These are very different things.

It is dull to compare threats received in an online video game to the sort of harassment that the panelists are complaining about. Or do you think the comparison is apt and fully applicable?

In any event, there are real ways of dealing with anti-social behavior in MMORPGs – all the pay-to-play MMOs have anti-harassment policies that can be invoked when a user steps over the line. Beyond the fact that, again, people playing MMOs are not involved in a social movement the way that people commenting on, responding to, and attending secular/atheist Cons are.

Will you stop playing the “just because you disagree” card?! No one falls for that shit anymore. NO, it is not “just because you disagree”–it is because you are dismissive and unthinking and totally unable to see the world from anything other than your little privileged perch, and it’s fucking tiresome to deal with your utter lack of understanding of the issues that were already laid out in the video! They already explained (at length!) that their experiences with trolling are dramatically different from the minor, unserious trolling people get in fora, and you are simply spouting off on your uninformed and inflexible view that they must be the same–this isn’t “just because you disagree,” and you know better than that!

Besides–you STARTED this conversation whining about how you were going to be disagreed with–you didn’t even wait to make your claim look like it arose organically! Seriously trashes your credibility!

I apologise ,Moira, it appears that I thought the discussion was about general internet trolls and not about the specific actions of individual blogger vs blogger trolling. I understand that they are not the same thing and play out in very different ways especially if the bloggers are well known to each other and their audience.

If you’re interested in looking at parallels, you might consider how the treatment of Anita Sarkeesian mirrors that of Watson and now (to a lesser extent) Criss.

The characterization of a woman as a “radical feminist,” and the resulting campaigns to undermine her opinions and work are very similar. I’m not looking at content here, only structure – the scaffolding of the attacks is similar and represents, to me, a vast undercurrent of fear and defensiveness that can escalate into nasty expressions of hatred rather like the kind I sometimes encounter when I talk to other white people about privilege.

Understanding the social context and structure you exist in is not the same as having to feel guilty about who you are, if more people could understand that we might have more open conversations about racism, sexism and other social ills.

Thnx mate, I think the topic is worth while to discuss and there is definitely a line where if they know personal information about you that they probably shouldnt or if its harrasment from the same person over a long period of time then I can understand the issue but I dont feel the panel discussion had much nuance or area’s of conflict – everyone seemed to agree with each other which is okay but I personally dont find that very interesting.

I completely agree with your comment about the internet and any online role player, heck even watching a local footy team play you hear the players get called all sorts or look at the graffeti in your local public toilets….but obviously nothing as bad as whats on the internet

As to whether women get it worse on the internet or in life in general, my guess is they get they do get it worse but not jst on the internet. But you can imagine there are places where being a skinny white gay male would get you beat up every single day and all sorts of names and torture – to me this is ten times worse as you really feel after time that you are not man enough but was this type of thing discussed on the panel?

Again my major complaint is that they took insults that are trivial in the major scheme of things – and from someone who you can avoid and never have to met – and you can drop them a quick “Fuk Off” with no physical retaliation – they took these trivial insults and did not dive into any depth with their discussion

I agree that the presenation didn’t get very deep. I think the problem is that there aren’t many new and effective ideas about “troll management”. So the main thing they had to say is that this is a real problem. Trolls can leave the basement. Trolls can buy guns. Guys who have shot up groups of women, like school shooters, but older have a trail off a lot of troll ranting (discovered during the police investigation.) (They also stated that making counter arguments to bad arguments, even hateful arguments, was iften worthwhile.)

I thought all the panelists were good, but I think the max panel size should be four people. Sometimes a broad panel, with the time needed for introductions, background, agreements, and overlapping coverage, is cumbersome and is nevessarily shallow due to its breadth. I think a three person panel would rock! Or four people who talk fast and don’t take questions.

Did you actually listen to the discussion about what kind of trolls there are, and what kind of real-life consequences people experience from some trolls? You seem to be dealing with this on a ridiculously superficial level and are remaining willfully ignorant in your belief that these vicious, harassing trolls that marginalized groups receive *must* be the same as MMORPG trolls, because that’s all *you’ve* personally experienced, and you can’t actually listen to someone else’s experience and empathize with it.

This is not just because you are male–it is because your level of understanding of this situation is willfully superficial.

If I took comments made out of frustration and rage seriously then I’d have to believe that an extraordinary amount of young men (and some young women) have has sex with my mother, as they so often claim.

You’ve never had them in real life? Lucky you. One might almost say you’ve been privileged.

Arseholes on the internet are still arseholes. Stop apologising for them. It’s the same mentality as those that apologise for comments by drunk people and say that they’re really a nice person when sober.

Of course I’ve had those experiences in real-life as well. But I’m still not going to ask my mother if she had sex with the numerous individuals at my university who claim to have ‘banged’ her. It’s outrageous to believe they are being serious when they throw out a comment like ‘I fucked your mum last night’. It simply marks frustration and/or anger at the situation (in which their anger is directed at me, usually because I’m insufferably annoying).

While it’s not the best type of social conduct (similar to the more colloquial use of the word gay to mean ‘bad’ or ‘lame’), these phrases simply aren’t meant in the literal sense any more and shouldn’t be taken that way.

It’s outrageous to believe they are being serious when they throw out a comment like ‘I fucked your mum last night’.

And that relates to the topic at hand how? Did you hear someone talking about receiving hundreds of “I fucked your Mom” comments? I heard them talking about rape threats and death threats and concerted efforts at intimidation. Not the triviality of some other pissed off WoWteen ranting at you in-game but showing up in your personal email, as blog and social media comments, edited into your Wikipedia page, etc.

You are seriously misrepresenting the behaviour we are discussing by trying to equate it to WoW smacktalk. Context matters.

I feel that you have missed my point. Though I do understand how my comment could mislead you into believing I was trivialising by trying to refocus on specific gamer-culture insults.

The ‘I fucked your mum comments’ I stated were real-life, not WoW smack talk. Those comments were used as an example of the typical ludicrous nature of such comments – they are obviously false and no one really intends to pursue sexual intercourse with my mother. Just as no one really intends to rape me just because they said randomly that they want to or that someone should.

My over-arching point is that internet or obscene RL (the RL ones that derive from common internet use, at least) comments should not be taken literally and instead should be seen as an expression of hate/anger.

Receiving hundreds of ‘You should be raped/I want to rape you’ comments, in my opinion, should not be seen as indicative of a rape thirsty culture/society. This type of talk is more of a generic anger response that builds itself from the structure of what the target was talking about. (i.e. if someone was talking about fish and commenter ‘1’ disagreed they may jump to generic insult “someone should slap you in the face with a fish”.) Most of these comments don’t mean what they infer literally – they boil down into ‘I disagree with you and you made me angry’.

Plus the person I was replying too was merely questioning whether or not I had received threats and abuse in real-life. They also stated that arseholes online were arseholes in RL, this is something I disagreed with.

Maybe I should have taken a different tact and said that the social pressures are different in real life and that makes it less likely for someone to make such comments when face-to-face with you – i.e. not all people who say such stuff online would dare to say in RL.

What does that even mean? Should Jessica Ahlquist have forwarded her rape threats to you so you could check them out and see if they were “real”? (Or should that be “REAL”? Is it all in caps because it’s an acronym or something?) Should a woman just blithely ignore threats until she’s actually been raped and then say “Oh, I guess I should have taken that particular threat seriously since it was a R.E.A.L. rape threat”?

Your posts simply drip with privilege and ignorance. The simple solution to that is to listen to what other people are saying about their actual life experiences and stop trying to translate everything through the narrow lens of your own limited experience.

It’s a systematic thing, tychism. There is a culture surrounding not only online gaming, but other forms of expression (be it online conversations or offline, meat-space types) where women are demeaned and burdened with misogny and threats of violence and rapist fantasies.

The point of the matter is to try to change that attitude. For every YouTube channel or MMORPG or real life situation where a misognystic (insert racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, usw) comment is met with a “that’s not cool” rather than being condoned (implied or actual,) you can change opinions and make people realize there’s an issue there.

Not that it will always work. Sometimes trolls troll for trolling’s sake. In that, though, other people may be reading or watching or listening and their previously validated misogyny (usw) would be called out, and it can change their attitude. Not just that, but seeing the horrible way some women are treated merely for expressing an opinion or trying to show an inherent sexism in some medium can also cause people to realize ‘oh that’s not cool.’

And as I said, it doesn’t necessarily extend to merely misogyny. It can extend to any circumstance and any kind of behavior that validates and reinforces privilege and stereotype. In a previous comment, michael, mentioned skinny, white, gay men as a possible vector for violence and demeaning behavior. Calling out homophobia and gay-related violence would be a method to solve that problem.

It’s quite telling that your primary example of “sexual harassment” is “I fucked your mum”. Because it really shows that
A) We’re not playing in the same ballpark. Really, that’s the horrible stuff you got?
B) The insult is aimed at the sexual purity of your mother as if she were somehow your property and not an adult being who can fuck other adult beings as she sees fit provided all parties involved consent.
C) Thing is, we get the actual stuff online and offline and we get the real stuff. Men don’t tell us “yeah and I made your mother scream out my name when I fucked her last night”. They tell us “And I’ll make you beg for mercy when I fuck you till you bleed”. While towering over women.

Regardless of any real, or imagined shortcomings of Rebecca Watson and her potentially future Mrs Slocombe hair she is a very clear speaker, that other people could try harder to emulate. I suppose she could just be getting special treatment from the sound mixer though.

Khafre’s just an unrepentant misogynist. His ideas are the types of ideas which, like ancient aliens (since I’m thinking about videos Christian Rad has posted, thanks!) or the validity of the Bible, just really aren’t worth rationally debating.

Khafre’s a real person. The internet is real life.

When I undertook a tiny bit of real life activism–organizing a march for women’s rights in my home town–my Facebook account was quickly spoofed, someone impersonating me made inflammatory and bigoted comments all over the web, and my home phone number and address was posted as well.

THAT is frightening. And I only got a teeny tiny taste of it. I know to lock down my personal info more tightly now, but I was a noob at this online feminism thing back then.

All you dudes who are like “don’t let it bother you! it’s no big deal!” Sorry, you don’t know what you’re talking about. It is a big deal, and we should ALL be bothered by it. Stop trying to empower the assholes, because that’s what advice like that does.

Khafre’s just an unrepentant misogynist. His ideas are the types of ideas which, like ancient aliens (since I’m thinking about videos Christian Rad has posted, thanks!) or the validity of the Bible, just really aren’t worth rationally debating.

How do you prove someone who is merely posting on a blog is a misogynist? You have never met me, and know nothing about me, I suppose? Or, have you met me? Maybe you have. In your wild fantasies about women, vaginas, rapes, sexual harassments, and me? Come back to the real world and look all around. Be pleasantly shocked to discover that most women and living happy, and peaceful lives. Like I said before, villains and victims come in both genders. Look at the people in jails. How many of them are women and how many of them are males?

Now there’s a real conundrum! However could we possibly have discerned someone’s opinions on a subject merely by listening to them (endlessly) expressing their opinions on the subject?

Could you possibly have made a big screw up in the process? Even judges and juries do that after being passionately involved in months-long trials, lots of witnesses and evidence. So, what on earth makes you so sure about your ‘discernment’ (to use the word very lightly)?

I guess it’s *possible*…but then again it’s also POSSIBLE that there’s a pink sparkly nano-unicorn living up my ass. If you want to convince us our discernment is untrue, you’ll have to actually provide a counter-argument. Expecting us to reject the most parsimonious and straightforward interpretation of your direct statements in favor of a totally unsubstantiated possibility that maybe you mean something else (which you have not elaborated!) is an embarrassing failure of critical thinking.

It’s true. I have no idea what you think about women in your heart of hearts.

I only know that you write some truly vile misogynist opinions on this blog and others.

You could possibly be pretending to view women in an incredibly negative light, just for kicks.

Of course, anyone who thinks it’s lulzy to impersonate a misogynist still thinks women are just inferior enough not to warrant being accorded the respect of not being the butt of someone’s cruel joke.

So… yeah. Definitely a misogynist.

I think you could have placed a FULL STOP after you said “It’s true. I have no idea what you think about women in your heart of hearts.” Which is to say, if you don’t know what I think about women in my heart of hearts, then technically you are not qualified to pass a judgement on me about what kind of relationship I have with women. Right?

No, I don’t hate women. Far from it. In fact, quite a pleasant and friendly relationship I have with women in real life — much more pleasant and friendly than I have with men. And you are more than welcome to cite me where I said women were inferior creatures, women and men were not equal, I hated women, I didn’t like women, etc… In fact, if you notice, I have, from time to time, said quite unpleasant things about men too. Does that make me a man-hater as well?

In the end, hardly a surprise that I have been called a misogynist on FTB for disagreeing with the champions of feminism! Makes no difference to me, because in the depth of my heart of hearts, I know this is not who I am. So, keep calling me that if you feel like doing it. I won’t ever try to stop you or anyone else.

Yeah, and I bet you have black friends, too! Your entire whine about how you’re totally not a misogynist sounds just as ridiculous as all those fools who say “I’m not a racist, but…” It is all to common for people to hold odious cultural biases and not be aware of it themselves (in fact, it’s probably more common than conscious bigotry!)

By the way, no one is talking about your “relationships” with women–we are talking about your ATTITUDES about women. Attitudes that you have explicitly expressed on this comment thread. No, we can’t know for sure what’s in your heart of hearts, but then again we can’t know for sure that you aren’t some drug-induced hallucination inflicted on my brain as it sits in its jar. The level of certainty you seem to insist on is literally impossible for each and every judgement we make throughout our lives. We can, however, assign a very high probability that what you say is what you mean (especially because if you didn’t mean all this shit, why would you say anything as odious, bigoted, and ignorant as you have done?!), and you have given us no reason to think otherwise.

Look, hating who someone is–which is the foundation of thinking of them as Other and as inferior and especially as entities inevitably devalued and lacking agency if they express their sexuality (all of which you’ve done on this thread)–does not preclude holding civil relationships with them, or of thinking of some members of a despised group as “not like the others.” Hatred of minorities, of women, of gays, of other nationalities, etc., etc., etc. rarely manifests itself in over animus: frothing-at-the-mouth is really a tiny subset of the expression and feeling of hatred. Most people who hate others on the basis of who they are, and who devalue and dehumanize them, do not consciously realize their hate.

And “disagreement” does not exist in a vacuum–you aren’t being called a misogynist because you disagree about the format of the panel or the role of the internet in modern life. You are being called a misogynist because you specifically said women were not equal to men. You specifically said women who expressed their sexuality inevitably become sex objects. You specifically said that women who excelled at fields to which you did not want to give them access were becoming men. You specifically said that women talking about their experiences being raped, harassed, and abused were engaging in “wild fantasies.” These statements are THE DEFINITION of misogyny. If you are not a misogynist, what does misogyny even MEAN?!

You are being called a misogynist because you specifically said women were not equal to men. You specifically said women who expressed their sexuality inevitably become sex objects. You specifically said that women who excelled at fields to which you did not want to give them access were becoming men. You specifically said that women talking about their experiences being raped, harassed, and abused were engaging in “wild fantasies.” These statements are THE DEFINITION of misogyny. If you are not a misogynist, what does misogyny even MEAN?!

Where did I say women were not equal to men? In fact, I remember specifically saying that men and women were equals, but still very different.. But being different from each other here doesn’t imply one in superior and the other is inferior. You know, like saying red and green are very different colours. When you say red and green and different colours, do you imply one is better than the other? Of course, not. Unless you do. Do you?

Like I said before, you can’t put all men in one box and all women in another box and then affix all sorts of labels on these two boxes in order to identify them. There are all sorts of women, and there are all sorts of men too. What I said was more along the lines that many women, maybe unconsciously, want to be treated as sex objects. You have a lot of them in the porn film industry. Men too.

As for your third objection, I have again and again tried to explain my point. I’ll do it once more — just for you. Like I said, men are women are very different from each other, both physically and psychologically, as such, there are some roles that suit women, and there and some roles that suit men, and in between these two extremes we have roles that can be performed by both men and women.

Let me give you some examples:

1- lifting heavy weights, and doing intense labour. Fighting wars as in infantry units — These role suit men because it requires physical strength.
2- Midwifery, nursing — These role suit women because they are naturally more nurturing than men
3- President of a country, CEO, computer operator, secretary — These roles suit both men and women because both possess the required skills.

Now, it is simply very ignorant to encourage women to do all sorts of jobs which are not suitable for them, just for the sake of this so-called equality. And who is encouraging them to do these jobs? Mostly men, of course. So, in this struggle for equality, these women are still ultimately conforming to men, and will keep doing that forever, and thus will never ever be able to reach a state of equality. That was my point.

And I gotta go now. Cheerio.

PS: I am more than OK with your name-calling. That’s not even an issue. I just like to debate!

Heads up: most men (99% or something like that, I mean, we all have mothers and sisters yeah? And most straight men have wives or partners eventually) have nice positive relationships with women at some point in their lives.

And yet sexism continues to exist.

So claiming that you have a nice personal relationship with some women isn’t really a sound method for rebutting claims that you’re a misogynist.

You are. Your views on women are disrespectful, degrading, and often outright false.

That whole bit about how men will always have the upper hand at your undefined “standards” comes to mind…also, that whole bit about how there are roles at which you insist a woman “will never be able to compete with a man.”

In fact, I remember specifically saying that men and women were equals, but still very different.

And we specifically told you that that’s fucking bullshit–separate is NOT equal. There’s a reason we don’t fondly remember Plessy vs. Ferguson as a beacon of enlightened jurisprudence. Moreover, you have provided NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to substantiate your claims of difference.

But being different from each other here doesn’t imply one in superior and the other is inferior.

It’s just that (you claim) one will always define the social, legal, and political standards, and those are what have real force in the real world. You have implied a bunch of traits that are universally beneficial to humanity–loyalty, courage, strength, problem-solving, all of which are major factors in the careers you lionized–as exclusively male, and that if a woman were to try to succeed at those careers and thus those qualities, she is becoming a man, so you are forcing women into a powerless and functionally inferior role.

Moreover, when someone wants to have full access to the society in which they live, and you say NO, YOU’RE DIFFERENT so you can never compete at this, you are in fact forcing them into an inferior position. Lack of agency and restriction of opportunity is by definition inferior.

When you say red and green and different colours, do you imply one is better than the other?

And has red suffered centuries of discrimination while green has not? Are red and green characteristics of billions of sentient entities that have wants and ambitions that in addition to their redness and greenness? No? Then this analogy is fucking worthless.

Like I said before, you can’t put all men in one box and all women in another box and then affix all sorts of labels on these two boxes in order to identify them.

No, you said exactly the opposite. You have been the one insisting on demarcating different roles for men and women, and saying we’re naturally suited to different things. This empty fucking platitude doesn’t change that.

What I said was more along the lines that many women, maybe unconsciously, want to be treated as sex objects.

No, you did not say this. You said that a woman “looking good and sexy” AUTOMATICALLY became a sex object: “If women do not want to be treated as ‘sex objects’ by men, then why do a lot of them spend so much time on looking good and sexy? Obviously, there is a contradiction here.”

You totally failed to understand the difference between self-actualized sexuality versus performative sexualization.

And, as for those women who do unconsciously want to be treated as sex objects, there is a whole field of theory about internalized sexism and you’re about two decades late to this discussion. I suggest you stop blustering and start reading.

Like I said, men are women are very different from each other, both physically and psychologically,

You haven’t provided any fucking evidence for this claim!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?! CITE SOMETHING, MOTHERFUCKER!!!!

as such, there are some roles that suit women, and there and some roles that suit men,

You have utterly failed to support this, and you have even failed to identify what roles–and what characteristics about them–you are talking about!

1- lifting heavy weights, and doing intense labour. Fighting wars as in infantry units — These role suit men because it requires physical strength.

The variability in strength WITHIN genders is greater than the variability in strength BETWEEN genders. Furthermore, you have utterly failed to address the role of socialization in strength: women who have been raised to be discouraged from sports are going to be weaker not because of their physiology but because of their environment and a lack of physical training. In contrast, women who have access to that sort of training can be excellent weight lifters, laborers, and soldiers and can make up the strength needed for a wide variety of jobs. Furthermore, why should it matter if men on average have greater physical strength, if a particular woman is strong enough for the job, and wants to do the job, why should she be barred from it? Why should she be assumed less competent because of her gender? Why should she be judged on the average strength of her gender rather than on her own skills? Why should this one attribute make you think she is trying to be a man, rather than simply a stronger-than-average woman?

2- Midwifery, nursing

Actually I know a good many very capable male nurses. And men are certainly very capable obstetricians. The midwife movement tends to be gender-essentialist, which is a problem with its philosophy and woo, not with the potential of men.

These role suit women because they are naturally more nurturing than men

WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR EVIDENCE YOU FILTHY POMPOUS MOTHERFUCKING ASSHOLE?!?!!?

3- President of a country, CEO, computer operator, secretary — These roles suit both men and women because both possess the required skills.

While it’s fairly magnanimous of you to declare that these jobs are not gender-specific, are you at least aware of the fact that every single one of these positions are believed by many to be gender-specific based on similarly shoddy reasoning as “women are just more nurturing and therefore better nurses”?? Women have been held out of the first three fields you mentioned at grossly disproportionate rates for a whole bunch of gender-essentialist misconceptions: we’re not assertive enough, we’re not intelligent enough, we’re not logical enough, we’re not good enough at math, and on and on and ON, and this affects women’s salaries and hiring.

Now, it is simply very ignorant to encourage women to do all sorts of jobs which are not suitable for them, just for the sake of this so-called equality.

Wait a minute–you can’t claim first that women are privileged in that we’re not expected to do certain jobs, and then denigrate women who want to do those jobs by saying they’re simply not suitable, and mocking equal opportunity as “so-called equality”! Those are mutually exclusive positions. Either we’re privileged that we don’t have to do these jobs, or we’re inferior and so we can’t.

Moreover, who is talking about encouraging? All I’m saying is that women deserve to have a fair chance at whatever job they like, and they deserve to be evaluated on their own merits, not on stereotypes. Furthermore, where the fuck do you get off insisting that women as a monolith must be suited for similar things? Why must the primary determinant of what job is suitable for someone be gender?!

And who is encouraging them to do these jobs? Mostly men, of course.

Do you even understand the FUCKING CONCEPT of citing your sources?! Where the fuck do you get this steaming bullshit? Did it ever fucking occur to you that women seek out these jobs because they like them, because they are the best paying option they have, because they have children to feed?! Where the fuck do you get off claiming this bullshit?!

So, in this struggle for equality, these women are still ultimately conforming to men,

Are you seriously trying to claim that the forefront of the fight for equality is the chance to be firefighters, police officers, and soldiers? Rather than, say, being presidents, CEOs, scientists, computer programmers, etc.?! It seems that the jobs and roles most eagerly sought after are those that bring political power and financial security, not those that require a lot of brute strength. So what the fuck is the point of saying women are “ultimately conforming to men” when we’re overwhelmingly trying to get greater representation in fields you acknowledge we’re equally suited for?

and will keep doing that forever,

Did it ever occur to you that those jobs that require a lot of brute strength are overwhelmingly being replaced with machines in our modern economy anyway?!

thus will never ever be able to reach a state of equality.

So explain again why you think parity in firefighting is women’s ultimate goal in gender equality? Explain why anyone in their right mind would be opposed to a competent, qualified male nurse?!

Heads up: most men (99% or something like that, I mean, we all have mothers and sisters yeah? And most straight men have wives or partners eventually) have nice positive relationships with women at some point in their lives.

And yet sexism continues to exist.

So claiming that you have a nice personal relationship with some women isn’t really a sound method for rebutting claims that you’re a misogynist.

You are. Your views on women are disrespectful, degrading, and often outright false.

If you don’t like the label then change your behavior.

Sam, what on earth is this? Whoever rebutted that claim? I can assure you it wasn’t me, because I don’t consider it be a valid claim to start with. It is just your opinion about me, and I have no problems with your personal opinions. Like I said, keep calling me whatever you like. I would be the last person on earth to ask you to stop calling me names!

And yes, sexism continue to exist. But I am hardly the cause for it. In fact, I see it very rarely, if ever, in real life.

It seems to me you know nothing about my argument….and you probably don’t want to know much either. But I’ll answer that:

So explain again why you think parity in firefighting is women’s ultimate goal in gender equality? Explain why anyone in their right mind would be opposed to a competent, qualified male nurse?!

I am not opposed to a male nurse. Hell no. But I would, under all circumstances, prefer a female as nurse. Don’t ask me why. I have been made that way by nature. Also, if my property was on fire, I would want some strong men as fire fighters. Not some women who were pretending to be men, but couldn’t even hold the hose properly.

Again, try to understand the core of the argument. Which could be summed up as:

Men and women are equal but very different, therefore there are roles that suit men, and there are roles that suit women. Also, when women are encouraged to do jobs which have been traditionally performed by men … such as being infantry soldiers or fire fighters… all women are being told is, be like men, because being like men is the only way they could be accepted into (and by) the society on equal terms as men. But my argument says … women can choose to refuse these jobs by saying, we are not suitable for these jobs because we are women! And thus be proud of their gender, instead of conforming to men’s standards of what is acceptable and what’s not! Does that make sense?

And please, for Gods sake, try to shorten your future replies. As per my observation, you can actually shrink them by 80 percent without losing any useful information.

But I would, under all circumstances, prefer a female as nurse. Don’t ask me why.

The answer to this is that you are a sexist fucking douchebag.

I have been made that way by nature.

No, you have been made that way by a culture that bombards you with images of men being strong and women being caring or sexy, and you have utterly failed to question your cultural narratives about the world, because they stroke your ego, and you’re not particularly skeptical to begin with.

Also, if my property was on fire, I would want some strong men as fire fighters.

YOU ARE A SEXIST MOTHERFUCKING ASS. I want you to go to the mirror, stare at your face, and say to yourself “I am an ignorant, full-of-shit, sexist motherfucking ass who is too intellectually lazy to realize my prejudices even as I say them out loud.” Maybe then you’ll get somewhere with your willful blindness to your privilege.

Look, when ethical, responsible, CIVILIZED people think about their property being on fire, they want strong PEOPLE as firefighters. They want people with good training and good technique and teamwork. They don’t assume that this could only be found in persons of a certain gender. They would care more about results than about stereotypes.

Not some women who were pretending to be men,

Funny, I thought their primary goal would be to PUT OUT THE FIRE!!! Where does gender identity come into that? Why would they have to pretend to be anything other than what they are, which is FIREFIGHTERS?! Why do you think that helping one’s fellow human beings in the face of danger is essentially a male endeavor?

but couldn’t even hold the hose properly.

So, I don’t know much about firefighting, but could you please explain to me why one needs a penis to hold a firehose?

Again, try to understand the core of the argument.

It isn’t an argument. It has never been an argument. It is, and has been, a series of utterly wacked-out ignorant assertions made without a shred of evidence or reason. Moreover, it’s not that I don’t understand–your simple declarative statements are at roughly a third-grade level, after all!–I know what you are trying to say, and I’m telling you you’ve provided no evidence.

Men and women are equal but very different,

PROVE IT. You haven’t fucking proved this!!!! Do you think that the thirtieth time you just repeat this ignorant sexist bullshit we’re going to fall for it?!

Are you even capable of understanding that we do not accept the premises of your worldview, and that if you can’t defend them other than just repeating them, it’s very likely because your worldview is total shit?!

therefore there are roles that suit men, and there are roles that suit women.

“Therefore” is invalid because you haven’t established your premises. Moreover, you haven’t articulated what you mean by these roles and why.

Also, when women are encouraged to do jobs

Are you simply incapable of understanding that women are sentient autonomous beings who can actually want things for themselves?!

such as being infantry soldiers or fire fighters

But they’re not being encouraged. Women are fighting tooth and nail to get access to those jobs, and to stop the legal and de facto discrimination and the gender-based violence that keep them out of their preferred careers.

… all women are being told is, be like men,

You have provided no evidence whatsoever that being a firefighter or a soldier is inherently being like a man. All you can say is that women have historically been prohibited from participating in these activities in our culture (but not all cultures!). You have provided no evidence for why being brave, strong, loyal, problem-solving, quick-witted, etc., must be masculine traits, as opposed to traits that any human being could admire and attain.

because being like men is the only way they could be accepted into (and by) the society on equal terms as men.

You have not established any reason why a firefighter is the pinnacle of sociopolitical achievement. You have not established why brute force is a criteria for political and legal equality. You have not established why SOME women choosing to be firefighters or soldiers means that this would be the ONLY way to be equal in society.

But my argument says … women can choose to refuse these jobs

Of course many women can choose to refuse these jobs. Just like the vast majority of men have chosen to refuse those jobs and have instead gone into accountancy, law, consulting, etc., etc., etc.

But–here’s the thing: it’s not a “choice” if you only have one option, which is what you’re advocating for people. You are saying that because of someone’s gender, limitations on their career path should be chosen FOR THEM, and that is blatantly discriminatory.

by saying, we are not suitable for these jobs because we are women!

Why would they say that? You’ve provided no evidence that it’s true. You’ve also ignored the thousands of female police officers, paramedics, firefighters, miners, and soldiers who have served their communities and countries.

Also, women are not a monolithic entity and we don’t all make decisions collectively for our gender. Just so you know…

Or by “proud” do you just mean that I should shut up and be contented with traditionally feminine things? Well, fuck that, asshole!

instead of conforming to men’s standards of what is acceptable and what’s not!

Why do you assume this is “conforming” to certain standards, rather than fulfilling one’s own wishes? Why do you assume the desire to have trained professionals who put out fires is intrinsically a male standard? Isn’t that something that is acceptable–nay, essential!–in any community regardless of the gender of its inhabitants?! What do you mean by “acceptable”? A woman being a firefighter is not “conforming” to “what is acceptable and what’s not”; she is broadening her options–she can both be a firefighter AND be a mother, and/or a seamstress, and/or a cookie-baker, and/or a fashionista. These are not mutually exclusive, and people are multi-faceted.

Does that make sense?

No, it is fucking fractally wrong!

And please, for Gods sake, try to shorten your future replies.

Hey, you’ve got a lot of bullshit to unpack…and I actually care about providing reasons and evidence, something it would behoove you to do!!

PROVE IT. You haven’t fucking proved this!!!! Do you think that the thirtieth time you just repeat this ignorant sexist bullshit we’re going to fall for it?!

Prove something so obvious? That men and women are different? Why, haven’t you noticed how you have different public toilets for men and women? What is your gender? If you are a male, try going to ladies toilets … preferably with 10 or more ladies inside the toilet. My guess is, it will take you less than 10 seconds to realize how different men and women are! Also, haven’t you noticed how men and women wear different kinds of clothes? Haven’t you also noticed how make-up products are almost always made exclusively for females? How about women giving birth to children? How about men on average being stronger than women? How about a different set of genitalia for men and women? How about Gillette shaving gels for men to shave their facial off? How many times have you seen women with long beards and horse shoe moustaches? Yeah. I am talking about these differences — and these differences exist, whether you accept them or not.

Now based on the information you have received here, how would you further respond?

So, I don’t know much about firefighting, but could you please explain to me why one needs a penis to hold a firehose?

Just saw this comment of yours and thought I might do a little explaining here. Actually, one doesn’t need a penis, but one surely needs strong hands and arms …

I found this …

“The fire hose nozzle has a big handle on it so firefighters can spray a lot of water – really fast! Sometimes so much water comes out of a fire hose that two firefighters have to hold onto the hose at the same time!”

Oh, look, the classic sexist tactic of pointing out trivial physical differences between genders and wildly extrapolating so psychological and sociological differences!! Easily one of the most outrageous and embarrassing non-sequiturs ever!!

Look, idiot–I’ve already had this argument in great detail over here, and I have no desire to repeat what I’ve already typed. The thread really goes into depth and shows how utterly fallacious the type of arguments you’re making are. You could learn a thing or two about what may reasonably be considered natural, and what is more adequately explained by socialization, and if you actually paid attention to the argument you might actually fill some of the embarrassing gaps in your knowledge. So, go read the ENTIRE thread–yes, I know there are 323 comments, but read them ALL and understand the arguments about socialization vs. evolution and appropriate causal inferences before you come back here and waste our time with your ignorant assertions.

Prove something so obvious? That men and women are different?

You do realize, don’t you, that “Oh it’s so obvious” is begging the question?! This is exactly the same argument theists use to try to beg off of providing evidence for their god!

Why, haven’t you noticed how you have different public toilets for men and women?

This is a cultural construct. Many establishments have unisex single-seat toilets, and certain dorms/groups have no problem with multi-stall toilets being desegregated, so there is no natural necessity for different toilet facilities.

Also, haven’t you noticed how men and women wear different kinds of clothes?

CLOTHING IS A CULTURAL CONSTRUCT!!! Is there any more blatantly arbitrary social custom than what people wear?! It changes by the decade! Moreover, men and women can (and do) wear each other’s clothes! What clothing is ascribed to what gender (or both genders) varies hugely from region to region and time to time. For fuck’s sake, if you are going to make arguments about phenomena being fundamentally unchangeable, holy shit don’t justify it with allusions to something as radically changeable as FASHION!!!

Haven’t you also noticed how make-up products are almost always made exclusively for females?

This is a cultural construct, idiot! OUR CULTURE developed the obsession with women wearing makeup because a woman’s worth was determined by her looks (due to systemic economic and political disenfranchisement and women being treated as sexual property). In other cultures, both men and women decorate their faces. Moreover, in the 18th century it was common for aristocrats of both genders to always wear extensive makeup. Pointing to something that is culturally dependent says NOTHING about what is natural and unchangeable!

How about women giving birth to children?

And where exactly is this going to be relevant to what roles women are entitled to have?! Women with children have succeeded at a wide variety of careers in addition to their childbearing. You’ve also provided no evidence that the physiology of gestation or lactation necessitates a psychological difference in the two genders’ nurturing capabilities when controlling for socialization.

How about men on average being stronger than women?

Averages mean nothing in terms of what any given individual can do and what opportunities should be available to zem based on zir own merits.

How about a different set of genitalia for men and women?

Again, trying to go from a physical difference to wildly extrapolating to other differences. For the vast majority of functions people wish to perform in civic society and their professional lives, their genitalia are a trivial component. How is this relevant to anyone’s social or political role? Again, read the linked thread to realize the degree to which this is a bullshit non sequitur.

How about Gillette shaving gels for men to shave their facial [hair] off? How many times have you seen women with long beards and horse shoe moustaches?

You repeatedly claimed the genders are “very different.” This is a ridiculously trivial difference.

Yeah. I am talking about these differences — and these differences exist, whether you accept them or not.

These differences you cite have no bearing whatsoever on the political, social, economic, and legal equality of the sexes. They are absolutely trivial, and your claim was for PSYCHOLOGICAL differences and that certain standards were inherently male, both of which you utterly failed to substantiate. You have provided no reason why any of these differences would necessitate a different ROLE, much less ascribing that role to a whole gender full of 3.5 billion highly varied people. Epic fail, Shit-For-Brains, epic fail!!

Now based on the information you have received here, how would you further respond?

I would respond that you have the reasoning skills of a larval mosquito. Aren’t you ashamed of these non-sequiturs? Do you have any idea how utterly you’ve failed to provide any justification for why these trivial differences would mean anything in terms of the appropriateness of gender roles?!

See what I mean? It’s a task that requires strength, and since men are naturally physically stronger than women, this task suits men way more than it suits women. That was my point.

Holy shit, you really are a fucking idiot!!! Just because the average person in Group A has a more pronounced trait than the average of Group B says NOTHING about how any individual in those groups may express that trait, nor does it make that trait an essential marker of that group. Look, white people are more likely to get skin cancer. This does not mean skin cancer is a defining characteristic of whiteness or of white people’s appropriate social role, nor does it mean that if a person of color gets skin cancer they are somehow “conforming to white standards” or “trying to be white.”

Why would you assume that because women on average are less strong than men, that the female firefighter in front of you is insufficiently strong to do her job, or is less strong than her male colleagues?! Isn’t the fact that she completed her training and qualified for field work good enough evidence that she, as an individual, is capable for the task at hand? And, why is SHE as an individual not suited to be a firefighter, if she is in fact strong enough to do it and enjoys it? Whether or not the Marion the Librarian down the street is suited to be a firefighter is totally irrelevant to whether a different woman is!

And what determines aptitude in this case is strength, courage, professionalism, endurance, teamwork, tracking skills, spatial reasoning, and so on–NOT GENDER. Whether or not gender is loosely correlated with the expression of any of these traits doesn’t mean that gender DETERMINES whether or not an individual has those traits, much less the overall aptitude for a given job.

Furthermore, I ALREADY ADDRESSED this bullshit here:

The variability in strength WITHIN genders is greater than the variability in strength BETWEEN genders. Furthermore, you have utterly failed to address the role of socialization in strength: women who have been raised to be discouraged from sports are going to be weaker not because of their physiology but because of their environment and a lack of physical training. In contrast, women who have access to that sort of training can be excellent weight lifters, laborers, and soldiers and can make up the strength needed for a wide variety of jobs. Furthermore, why should it matter if men on average have greater physical strength, if a particular woman is strong enough for the job, and wants to do the job, why should she be barred from it? Why should she be assumed less competent because of her gender? Why should she be judged on the average strength of her gender rather than on her own skills? Why should this one attribute make you think she is trying to be a man, rather than simply a stronger-than-average woman?

So why the fuck are you just repeating the same old shit I’ve already debunked without even acknowledging the counter-argument?!

Furthermore, where do you get off telling me that my posts contain less than 20% useful information when you so blatantly miss points that have already been made?! I think the problem is that you are only capable of comprehending less than 20% of what I post!

LeftSidePositive That thread was getting thinner and thinner. So starting a new one here.

Why would you assume that because women on average are less strong than men, that the female firefighter in front of you is insufficiently strong to do her job, or is less strong than her male colleagues?! Isn’t the fact that she completed her training and qualified for field work good enough evidence that she, as an individual, is capable for the task at hand? And, why is SHE as an individual not suited to be a firefighter, if she is in fact strong enough to do it and enjoys it? Whether or not the Marion the Librarian down the street is suited to be a firefighter is totally irrelevant to whether a different woman is!

Maybe I could make some modifications in my previous arguments, because some of them did not take certain factors into account. I think your constant swearing slighlty affected my reasoning too…

So, again, my argument, like I said before, is many-dimensional or multi-faceted. One facet of my argument is men and women are very different — both physically and psychologically. Due to these differences, there are some tasks that suit women more than they suit men, and there are some tasks that suit men more than they suit women. In between these two extremes, we have tasks that suit both women and men, and most tasks fall in this category.

(I have already given examples, so I won’t give examples again.)

Firefighting is a task that requires physical strength. Like, to hold a high-pressure firehose you need lots of strength. And since men on average are physically stronger than women, this is one of those tasks that suits men more than it suits women –ON AVERAGE.

Now, obviously, if a woman is physically strong enough to meet the minimum criteria for this job, and she wants to do the job, then she is perfectly fine to do the job. But if the society later turns this woman into a hero just because she was able to do a job that is considered tough and for men only, then what about those women — most women– who can’t do this job because they are not physically strong enough? Aren’t you sending them a message that it is not OK to be women?

So, the point is, while women should be encouraged to these jobs, women at the same time should also be encouraged to speak out their minds and hearts, and thus should be able to freely say a big NO in CAPITALS for such jobs. In other words, It should be OK for them to say NO to such jobs, precisly because of their gender, and they should be able to do that without the fear of lowering their status in the society. Yet in other owrds, for a woman to be able to do such a job should not increase her status in the society, merely because she is a woman and she is doing what is tradionatlly considered ‘men’s-only’ job. This would be, as it could be seen easily, women conforming to men’s standards of what is equality, as defined by men. Or, in other words, women begging to men for equality.

So, by being able to freely say NO to such jobs without the fear of any consequences, women should be able to eventually say NO to men’s standards and definitions of equaluity by coming up with their own standards, and be conformatable with their gender.

Maybe I could make some modifications in my previous arguments, because some of them did not take certain factors into account.

In other words, I’ve definitively destroyed your pompous ignorant bullshit, and now you’re going to backtrack and sanitize your arguments so you can pretend to be respectable, instead of slinking back to the shit from whence you came. Alternatively, you can apologize and make a commitment to learn from your deeply misguided ways, but what you CANNOT do is “modify” your arguments beyond all recognition (including to the point of blatantly lying about what you said!) to try to weasel out of accountability for your bullshit.

I think your constant swearing slighlty affected my reasoning too…

Go fuck yourself, you slimy, shit-stained worthless tone troll.

So, again, my argument, like I said before, is many-dimensional or multi-faceted.

No it isn’t. It is blatant sexism, pompous platitudes, and generally confused claptrap. You’re just trying to add layers of needless obfuscations to bob and weave around your blatant douchebaggery.

One facet of my argument is men and women are very different — both physically and psychologically.

YOU HAVEN’T FUCKING PROVED THIS!!! How much more clearly can I possibly say this to you?! Why the fuck are you still repeating this bullshit?!

The physical differences you have mentioned are minor and irrelevant to the vast majority of jobs. You have failed to substantiate a single psychological difference. Did you read the link I told you to? If not, you’re a cheap fucking asshole who is wasting my fucking time.

Due to these differences,

You can’t make conclusions from premises you haven’t established yet, so go fuck yourself.

(I have already given examples, so I won’t give examples again.)

And your examples were complete and utter horseshit. If you actually cared a flying fuck about rigorous discourse, you would address the reasons your examples were shit and learn from them!

Now, obviously, if a woman is physically strong enough to meet the minimum criteria for this job, and she wants to do the job, then she is perfectly fine to do the job.

Utter bullshit. Don’t pretend that you didn’t say you specifically wanted MALE firefighters, and that **in all cases** you would want a FEMALE nurse. You do NOT think it’s fine that someone does a non-gender-traditional job, but now you’re just lying about what you said since we’ve pointed out how utterly indefensible your bigotry is.

But if the society later turns this woman into a hero just because she was able to do a job that is considered tough and for men only,

Maybe they applaud her as a hero because she saved a bunch of kids from a burning building?! Isn’t that a good reason??

Also, isn’t it praiseworthy that she has likely inspired many other girls to follow their dreams, if they wanted to do a non-traditional job and now have role models and mentors?

Doesn’t the praise come from the fact that she helped move our society toward making this job more gender neutral, which opens opportunities for everybody, rather than praising her for “being more like a man,” as though her presence doesn’t blow the entire prejudice that the job is “men-only” out of the water? Frankly, it says something about you that you seem to think real people’s gender identities are more malleable than abstract gender roles!

then what about those women — most women– who can’t do this job because they are not physically strong enough?

Most men are not strong enough to be firefighters either. No one refrains from praising strong firefighters out of concern for slight-of-build guys…because our culture is obsessed with holding up strong men as the norm.

Besides, who the fuck said physical strength was the ONLY way to be a respected contributor to society?! Maybe those women will develop new treatment regimens for various cancers, or write books beloved by thousands, or provide legal representation to struggling families, or develop new software that will revolutionize our communications, or give suicidal teens the support they need to overcome their mental health problems…Do you think Marie Curie was really sad that she couldn’t be a firefighter?! There are literally countless ways people can become heroes of society, and people’s unique talents and traits give them different skills which are dependent on THEIR INDIVIDUALITY AS A PERSON, not on stereotypes of their gender.

I have already specifically said on this thread that our reliance on raw strength is rapidly decreasing due to developing technology, and that the vast majority of jobs in which women are seeking advancement are not police, firefighting, etc., but rather those that have opportunities for social, economic, and political influence, to wit:

Are you seriously trying to claim that the forefront of the fight for equality is the chance to be firefighters, police officers, and soldiers? Rather than, say, being presidents, CEOs, scientists, computer programmers, etc.?!

So what the fuck are you on about?!

Aren’t you sending them a message that it is not OK to be women?

No, because we’re not fucking idiots who think a mean population difference equals an essential defining character trait, and I’ve already explained this to you multiple times!

So, the point is, while women should be encouraged to these jobs,

FUCK YOU, YOU MOTHERFUCKING BULLSHIT LIAR!!! This is the exact opposite of what you previously said:

“Now, it is simply very ignorant to encourage women to do all sorts of jobs which are not suitable for them, just for the sake of this so-called equality.”

and

If a woman shouts I can be a fire-fighter and fight like a man does … she is simply saying I can be a man! Which isn’t true, for good or for worse

So, you got called out for your completely indefensible bullshit, and you are now pretending that you meant something different all along? GO SHOVE A ROTTING PORCUPINE UP YOUR ASS!! How fucking stupid do you think we are? Do you not fucking realize that your previous posts are still up? Why not just concede defeat and shut the fuck up?!

women at the same time should also be encouraged to speak out their minds and hearts,

This is so patronizing I just want to vomit!

and thus should be able to freely say a big NO in CAPITALS for such jobs.

Who the fuck said they couldn’t? Are you under some strange delusion that there’s now a lady-firefighter draft?! I have already said that women trying to get into police, firefighting, and the military are a very small proportion of feminist activism/ambition (but they still deserve our support because oppression is interconnected). How fucking delusional do you have to be to believe that “don’t denigrate the womanhood of those who choose to go into a physically intensive job” means “all women should be pressured to go into physically demanding jobs”?!

In other words, It should be OK for them to say NO to such jobs,

Slavery was nominally ended with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and definitively ended with the thirteenth amendment in 1865. Everyone can say no to whatever job they don’t want, and pursue one that interests them.

precisly because of their gender,

FUCK NO. This is where you hurtle past all bounds of common decency. Why the fuck should gender play a role in not wanting a job? Why not “I don’t like the hours” or “I’d rather teach children” or “I have a bad back” or any number of reasons why an individual might not like a particular job?! Why the fuck would one invoke stereotypes of 3.5 billion people (some of whom do the job in question and love it!) as a reason why not to do a job? This makes no fucking sense.

Has it ever occurred to you that vast numbers of MEN have also said no to these jobs, for just about exactly the same reasons?!

and they should be able to do that without the fear of lowering their status in the society.

I don’t think you’ve ever established why you seem to think that firefighting, policework, and infantry are the pinnacle of social achievement. (Unless of course you aren’t just talking about jobs requiring strength, and you really are more uncomfortable than you admit with women making gains in executive and professional jobs that actually do lead to real social status…hmmm…)

Also, women’s traditional roles ALREADY have a lowered status in society. And you know why? Because it wasn’t arbitrary that we got kept out of most of the good stuff. It wasn’t like someone picked gender roles out of a hat, you know! Society has more need of people who can design buildings, organize complex business operations, sew up facial lacerations, and keep law and order, than it has for people who keep their own home clean with matched curtains.

Yet in other owrds, for a woman to be able to do such a job should not increase her status in the society,

This would only make sense if women’s status in society were already equal, which it is not. Since women are starting from a huge negative since our work has historically been confined to domestic and menial tasks that have little chance of impacting anyone outside one’s personal circle, a woman having access to a job that does make her a relevant agent in the greater society, that gives her economic independence, that hones skills and promulgates the benefits of those skills among others, gives her TONS of advantages over someone confined to the home or to menial jobs. She SHOULD increase her status in society because women’s status starts lower than men’s–so achieving equal opportunity must increase women’s status, or we still won’t be equal. What you seem to be advocating is women who are pursuing advanced or strenuous careers being kept in exactly the same marginalized position as housewives, apparently with some tut-tutting about how these ambitious women are distasteful to you because they’re trying to be men.

merely because she is a woman and she is doing what is tradionatlly considered ‘men’s-only’ job.

How about the fact that she’s doing a job that she’s doing a job that actually improves the lives of her fellow human beings, regardless of who used to do it?!

This would be, as it could be seen easily, by a pompous, willfully deluded asshat [as]

FTFY.

women conforming to men’s standards of what is equality, as defined by men. Or, in other words, women begging to men for equality.

Or, you know, women doing things that they themselves want to do because they’re good at them. Or, you know, women doing things that are intrinsically useful to society that people respect on the basis of the utility of those jobs. It’s not like men woke up one morning and declared “Hey! Let’s glorify our penises by quenching conflagrations and chasing ne’er-do-wells!!” There’s nothing intrinsically masculine about valuing firefighting or policework (soldiering, on the other hand, is a whole other ethical can of worms which is not relevant to the topic at hand…): rather, all people need stable structures to shelter them from the elements and thus greatly appreciate those structures not burning down. Similarly, all human beings are vulnerable to injury and would therefore prefer people who go about causing malicious injury to be removed from the general population. These are not “male” concerns–you only think they’re “male” because you (in your bigoted, privileged douchebaggery) have assumed that whatever is impressive in society must be “male.” Well, fuck you.

So, by being able to freely say NO to such jobs without the fear of any consequences,

This is just a paranoid boogeyman that makes no fucking sense. The “consequence” of saying NO to a job as a firefighter is that you can be a teacher or a dermatologist or a horticulturist or whatever you want. On what fucking planet is that a “consequence”?! The consequence of abstaining from the working world entirely is that one is a decorative social butterfly or a domestic drudge (depending on the disposable income of your cohabitants) with no financial independence, which is exactly where patriarchal society has put women for centuries.

women should be able to eventually say NO to men’s standards and definitions of equaluity by coming up with their own standards,

You still haven’t clearly stated what you mean by “standards.”

You still haven’t provided any rationale why some standards would be exclusively male as opposed to standards of general human interest.

And how exactly is living according to these made-up feminine “standards” going to pay the bills?!

and be conformatable with their gender.

You have provided no reason to believe that a woman who is a firefighter or a soldier is not comfortable with her gender.

YOU HAVEN’T FUCKING PROVED THIS!!! How much more clearly can I possibly say this to you?! Why the fuck are you still repeating this bullshit?!

I did try… but if you really insist that something so painfully simple and obvious should be proved to you over and over again, just to give you more opportunities to swear, then I guess there is no need to further respond to your ravings. Knock another door. I am sure you will find someone on this blog to entertain you for tonight.

Just saying you “tried” to prove something doesn’t AT ALL mean it can be accepted for the rest of the debate…the fact that you tried and FAILED MISERABLY to prove this, and that every single one of your supporting “arguments” were laughably misguided or an outrageous non sequitur should give you some insight as to why you are in all likelihood wrong.

Are you even consciously aware of the fact that I demolished your argument and you don’t have a leg to stand on?! Does the fact that your bold assertions don’t withstand the barest critical scrutiny make you reflect on your worldview in any way? If not, that may be a main cause of why your gender politics seem to be stuck in 1938…

but if you really insist that something so painfully simple and obvious

This is begging the question. Frankly, it is downright theistic thinking. Don’t you feel a little ashamed of yourself resorting to a blatantly obvious logical fallacy?!

should be proved to you over and over again,

No, it wasn’t even proved ONCE. Everything you think “proved” it had a gaping error in logic, and I pointed out each and every one to you. If your argument actually had any merit, you could either defend your points or come up with new arguments…but no, it’s easier to just marinate in your own prejudice and facile thinking!

Heya mate, I just wanted to respond to your comment earlier that “so You only support femminism when every feminist everywhere agrees with you” – come on mate? I never said I dont support feminism anywhere did I?

I said I didnt think the panel discussion was very good – thats not the equivilant of being anti-feminist and throwing around this sort of rhetoric is not very helpful. you seem to imply that unless I enjoy and respond positively to everything that any women does I am anti-feminist (Remember these girls as much as I love them dont own feminism and disagreeing with them isnt disagreeing with feminism)

1) Just because you don’t explicitly say something DOES NOT mean it’s not abundantly clear from your actions–like what you argue about and what your focus is.

2) You said that you specifically were engaged but were turned off because someone had pointed words for you. What clearer indication could there be that your support for this issue is at best conditional on how much deference you get?

3) Your contention that the panel was not very good is hugely biased by your insistence on dismissing a main thesis out of hand, and your petulance at not being the center of attention, both of which are classic sexist responses to women speaking up for themselves.

LSP, and a couple other folks wanted some links to back-up my assertion that Watson belittles, demeans, insults, and dismisses people who disagree with her (add your own http stuff).

I stopped listening to SGU along time ago because I got tired of hearing her sneer at anyone with whom she disagreed. Perhaps that’s a good place to start — though, I don’t know if she’s changed her on-air demeanour; perhaps she has.

I think the way Watson addressed Stef McGraw at the infamous meeting meets my description of her attitude and approach: … youtube.com/watch?v=aqzE16UsNW4and
… phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Attacks_on_Stef_McGraw

As a side note, it was specifically the McGraw issue that really kicked off this never ending drama; it was not Watson’s “Guys, don’t do that” comment: … phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Freethoughtblogs_timeline

Lots of people, though not on FfTB or Skepchick.org, think Watson’s reaction to Richard Dawkins’ “Dear Muslima” comment at Pharyngula, was a typical bit of overreacting snide: … skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

Some folks feel Watson went way too far overboard on this one too: … skepchick.org/2011/09/mom-dont-read-this/

I do not have a link to it anymore, but I imagine many of you are familiar with Watson’s lie about that Tony guy calling her a cunt: he didn’t; she then backtrailed and found a year-old comment in which he said she supported feminaziism (or some comment similar to that); she then used that to effectively say it was okay that she lied about him, but she wasn’t going to retract the lie nor apologize for it because a year ago he said something she didn’t like, right? Right.

Anyway, I have little doubt that these links will satsify, because I am quite familiar with the general round of pro-Watsonistas and their dogmatic and dissent-free support of all things Watson.

I think the way Watson addressed Stef McGraw at the infamous meeting meets my description of her attitude and approach:

I don’t know what the fuck you’re smoking. Watson read what McGraw said that she thought was wrong, she said why it was wrong, she carefully defined objectification and how that differs from real sexual expression, and she accurately pointed out that McGraw was ignorant of basic feminism. And, seriously, saying that Elevator guy was just “showing interest” and eliding predatory behavior by talking about us as “sexual beings,” with no apparent understanding of the concept of mutual consent, are INCREDIBLY ignorant statements! To say you don’t want someone to be called out as ignorant when they express such ignorance is basically saying you never want ignorance to be called out AT ALL (or, worse, you only want ignorance called out if you disagree with it!). A standard that refuses to call out such ignorance is downright corrosive to the marketplace of ideas.

Moreover, Rebecca’s tone was direct, calm, and professional, and she clearly delineated her difference of opinion and the reasons for it. It is, in fact, an excellent model for how to conduct public disagreements. If it were an intellectually-matched disagreement, the opposing side would simply make their counterargument, but in this case, since they had none, they had to whine about how wounded they felt at being criticized.

Pro-tip: it doesn’t exactly work to say someone is overly dismissive of a different point of view if you can’t provide any good reasons why that point of view deserves anything other than dismissal.

As a side note, it was specifically the McGraw issue that really kicked off this never ending drama; it was not Watson’s “Guys, don’t do that” comment:

This is flatly untrue. People in numerous corners of the internet are insisting Watson cruelly humiliated Elevator Guy, that she “cried rape,” that she blew “a polite invitation to coffee” out of the water, that she is trying to prevent anyone from flirting, that men are entitled to hit on women in elevators, that she is trying to control people’s sex lives, that she made the whole thing up, and on, and on, and on. The VAST majority of the anti-Rebecca people focus entirely on the actions in or surrounding the elevator, and it has been to my reading a small minority that tries to intellectualize their distaste for Rebecca by using the McGraw episode as a distraction.

Lots of people, though not on FfTB or Skepchick.org, think Watson’s reaction to Richard Dawkins’ “Dear Muslima” comment at Pharyngula, was a typical bit of overreacting snide:

Just saying lots of people think something is not making an argument as to why the viewpoint has merit.

Moreover, Richard Dawkins’ “Dear Muslima” is one of the most intellectually bankrupt statements I have ever read. Don’t complain about something because someone has it worse somewhere else? What utter claptrap! That would invalidate the ENTIRE atheist movement, and it willfully refuses to understand that social injustices great and small are interconnected. In what POSSIBLE context does “Dear Muslima” offer a valid, much less insightful, argument? WHY is it wrong to mock this? Is there any social justice movement that has NOT been told “shut up, you don’t have it that bad”?! How can you possibly say WATSON is being dismissive when Dawkins flat-out refused to acknowledge the reality of the rape threats Watson was experiencing, not to mention the experiences of sexual assault survivors in our movement? Dawkins was the DEFINITION of dismissive!

Some folks feel Watson went way too far overboard on this one too

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?! She opened up about some very painful harassment she was facing–who the fuck are you to tone troll her when she’s discussing threats like that? She described several incidents of stalking behavior or obsessive posting focusing on denigrating her–and she said who it was and why it was wrong. It seems to be that you will just cry foul with even the barest attempt to bring some kind of accountability to this behavior, let alone mocking and derision. Furthermore, why the fuck is it wrong to mock people who THREATEN TO RAPE AND KILL YOU?! What deference and charitable consideration of their views could they possibly deserve?!

Your original claim was that Watson is overly dismissive of those who have genuine contributions to make even though they disagree with her. What POSSIBLE genuine contribution could a rape-threat maker have to offer?! What brilliant intellectual discourse are we missing out on for failing to consider the nuanced insights of those who insist Rebecca left a “vagina-shaped void in Boston”?!

but I imagine many of you are familiar with Watson’s lie about that Tony guy calling her a cunt:

NOT A LIE. She made a fucking mistake. How deranged and determined to hate her do you have to be to insist on there being malicious intent with that? When someone gets called a cunt as many times as she does, it’s incredibly likely that at one point one will lose track. She got confused, and when she realized she was wrong she corrected it. She was right about him being a fucking asshole, but she corrected the incorrect word.

she then backtrailed and found a year-old comment in which he said she supported feminaziism (or some comment similar to that);

You do realize, don’t you, that what words people use to express their irrational hatred of another person or social justice philosophies pales in comparison to the actual expression of the irrational hatred? “Feminazi” and “cunt” are usually SUFFICIENT to establish misogyny, but what seems to be tripping you up is that they are not NECESSARY. When Ryan actually used a particular word is irrelevant to an assessment of his character–the important thing is he has been making the same arguments and expressing the same odious IDEAS throughout this time.

she then used that to effectively say it was okay that she lied about him,

No, you idiot. She did not say it was okay she “lied”–she said it was perfectly understandable that she got this particular hater mixed up with a bunch of other haters.

but she wasn’t going to retract the lie

You are willfully engaging in dishonest framing. Fuck off, troll. Furthermore, SHE DID retract the statement that he called her a cunt, and she retracted it TWICE.

nor apologize for it because a year ago he said something she didn’t like, right? Right.

This would only be a remotely relevant argument if his views had changed since then, if he had not continued to express the sentiments behind that statement since then, or if his statement a year ago were a misunderstanding. None of these are true, so fuck off.

I am quite familiar with the general round of pro-Watsonistas and their dogmatic and dissent-free support of all things Watson.

You sound like a creationist who has decided make a bullshit claim, shroud himself in a victim mantle that all the meanie scientists don’t believe him, and then use the scientist’s refusal to believe him as cause to deny the arguments of the scientists!

They both contain the factual information that he did not in fact call her a cunt. What more do you want? If your point is honesty, as you pretend, that should settle it for you. She did not lie, she simply misremembered the details of his douchebaggery and corrected those details. If it is that you just hate her for speaking out about people who post anti-feminist poppycock, you’re going to pretend that the lack of contrition means the lack of correcting factual information, and that’s fucking bullshit.

As a side note, it was specifically the McGraw issue that really kicked off this never ending drama; it was not Watson’s “Guys, don’t do that” comment: … phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Freethoughtblogs_timeline

I have to wonder what exactly the connection is between Rebecca Watson telling Stef McGraw she was making bad arguments and didn’t understand feminism, and a yearlong avalanche of harassment and sexualized threats.

Since you seem so down with the cause, perhaps you can explain, Mr. Greg.

“what exactly the connection is between Rebecca Watson telling Stef McGraw she was making bad arguments and didn’t understand feminism, and a yearlong avalanche of harassment and sexualized threats.”

I cannot speak to any sexualized threats, or actual direct harrassment, as I have certainly not made any such comments nor participated in any actual direct harrassment.

The timeline (linked to at the end of this comment) will do a much better job of answering your question, mainly because it was a long and complex series of events (not just one or two isolated events) all cascading one onto the other that lead over time to much of the anti-Watson commentary that has been so prevalent over the last several months.

As for the people at the erstwhile Slimepit (who, I’m sure you know, are dedicated critics of Watson, the FC5, and several of the commenters at FfTB), the McGraw thing started that off with Abbie Smith’s post titled Bad Form, Rebecca Watson, which, “among other things, criticizes Watson for her attack on Stef McGraw. This [was] the first of what [was] eventually … called “Slimepit” posts.”

That post is no longer available at NatGeo. However, there is a timeline at the Phawrongula wiki that outlines the series of posts and other events/phenomena that made up most of what eventually came to be called Elevatorgate (and the general Internet anti-Watson brigade, so to speak).

“So, when you are referring to the ‘never ending drama’ you are talking about something entirely different than what most people are referring to when they talk about it.”

Perhaps I misunderstood your question, or unintentionally focussed in the wrong direction. Yes, I thought you were referring specifically to the anti-Watson bunch who posted in the endless threads at ERV, and others who post occasionally at FfTB, and occasionally other blogs around the Internet, and whose primary argument is that they feel Watson is an unpleasant person who uses rheotrical trickery to belittle, demean, insult, and dismiss people she disagrees with. Holding such opinions is not, in my opinion, harrassment.

“WHAT do you think was the trigger for the yearlong sustained campaign of harassment against her?”

I do not accept that there is or even could be a single trigger. And, as I said, I cannot speak to any actual direct harrassment, as I have not participated in any actual direct harrassment, nor do I have direct knowledge or experience with anyone who has actually harrassed Watson in the real-world fashion that, for example, Greg Laden harrassed, bullied, and threatened people like Justin Griffiths, or bluharmony. All I have to go on is Watson’s own claims, which change or expand on a regular basis, and which have clearly occasionally been fabricated.

“I can understand not liking RW for the various reasons listed above, but none of those offenses rise to the level of deserving that.”

As you are asking me for explanations, could you be more specific in what “that” is? I mean, yes, I know you’ve said the year-long harrassment campaign. But what harrassment are you referring to? I think that is a legitimate question because there are probably a variety of causal factors, and many different groups, who have many different reasons for whatever the purported “harrassment” is. And without an agreed upon definition we would be talking at cross-purposes.

But, all that being said, I think it needs to be acknowledged that anyone who makes themselves a sort of target in the way that a lot of so-called Internet celebrities do, is going to get a rough time from small groups of loud and angry people. How often that rises to actual harrassment, I couldn’t say. And that’s not to excuse such behaviour, merely to acknowledge that it is an inherent byproduct of celebrity status.

Anyway, we do need to define harrassment. For example, I would not define the ongoing discussions at the erstwhile Slimepit as harrassment in any way, even when it occasionally spilled out into other blogms like some of the blogs here at FfTB.

“Also, Phawrongula perpetuates a slanderous lie about me personally, so forgive me if I don’t take it as a reputable source.”

If that is true, and you can verify it, I can personally guarantee you that the lie will be corrected. Would you care to follow that up? You could post a note at Phawrongula in the applicable article, showing the validity of your claim. No one will edit or delete your note. And, if your claim of there being a slanderous lie is verifiable and valid, or if the statement you claim is a slanderous lie cannot be verified, the so-called slander will be removed.

If you watched the video that Christina R. posted to start this page, Rebecca Watson describes some of the harassment she has experienced. It’s probably 5-10 minutes in. Clearly, many people are posting comments on the video without watching it. Are you among that number? RW also describes some harassment on Skepchick under the title Why I Am Not Going to TAM. You could also search Twitter.

smhll, I understand your point, but what I am asking is specifically what SamStrange is referring to as harrassment, not what Watson refers to as harrassment. SamStrange is asking the question, not Watson.

There seems to me to be what can loosely be described as two similar but unconnected groups of so-called harrassers:

1. The group of people who are actually harrassing her via emails and either explicit or implicit threats.

2. The group of people, such as the former ERV commenters, and individuals like Paula Kirby who are not in fact harrassing her, but are being critical of various aspects of her actions and/or behaviour. Criticism is not harrassment.

I do not consider Watson’s descriptions of harrassment to be completely valid, because they change from week to week. And, as I have said before, I simply do not trust her.

Anyway, for me to try to answer SamStrange’s question, I need SamStrange’s definition of what he/she is referring to as harrassment, not Watson’s.

Good point. I should have said that some forms of criticism may be interpreted as harrassment depending on content, context, style, intent, and the power balance, both circumstantial and real between the concerned parties.

That gives us both more room to work with. It also allows for difference of opinion on what constitutes harrassment. It is an important issue, and black and white definitions or criteria serve no one well.

Language is our friend, expecially when it allows for nuance and variation in content, context, and so on.

Language is our friend, expecially when it allows for nuance and variation in content, context, and so on.

Excellent. Perhaps with your fine grasp of nuance you can explain how this is a vicious and humiliating public attack completely beyond the pale for civilized discourse while, on the other hand, spending months equating people to the Nazis and the Stasi and taking part in an organized and concerted effort to label them bullies and fascists, creating clever websites and witty hashtags and charming little monikers like “Rebecca Twatson” not just for the person who offended you but for all of their friends, supporters and defenders is just good, clean helpful criticism.

“… explain how this is a vicious and humiliating public attack completely beyond the pale for civilized discourse …

I am unaware of anyone, anywhere describing it as such. So, no, I cannot explain that.

“… spending months equating people to the Nazis and the Stasi and taking part in an organized and concerted effort to label them bullies and fascists

I am also unaware of anyone doing that, especially the elements I italicized. Though it is true that there are some people, myself included, who feel that Watson (and the FC5) does bully people, especially people who she disagrees with and over whom she may have some power.

” … creating clever websites and witty hashtags and charming little monikers like “Rebecca Twatson” not just for the person who offended you but for all of their friends, supporters and defenders is just good, clean helpful criticism.

If you are going to post such ludicrous misrepresentations, and combine the separate acts of a few individuals into a blanket coverall for a large group of people, then clearly you have no interest in meaningful discussion.

If you point to specific and quoteable examples of behaviour you think is unjust on behalf of the anti-Watson brigade, fine. We can discuss that. But layering a bunch of semi-hysterical, exaggerated hyperbolic misrepresentation, outright deceit, and loaded questions doesn’t move the conversation forward.

And anyway, all this is derailing the conversation from my original question for Cristina, which was a direct reference and query to the original post topic.

I am unaware…I am also unaware…If you are going to post such ludicrous misrepresentations…

So, you brought up, for example, Paula Kirby

individuals like Paula Kirby who are not in fact harrassing her

but you are completely unaware of what Kirby has actually said. You are unaware that Kirby, when it was pointed out to her that her repeated use of the Feminazi slur put her on an even footing with Rush Limbaugh doubled down on the stupidity and viciousness and invented “Femistasi” so that we could tell them apart. And before you quack that she was just being hyperbolic, no such luck. She meant it exactly as it sounds.

Honestly, I see no reason to continue running about the web as your research assistant in order to try to nail your flailing jello to the mast. You appear not to be (or claim not to be) even moderately informed on the details of what you are discussing.

In regards to SamStrange, who I am fairly certain is a sock puppet (I thought those were deeply illegal on FftB) of SallyStrange, has either decided not to return to his/her accusation, or, knows full well that she/he has no grounds upon which to make the claim of slander — hey, SallySam, it is all documented.

And, in regards to the Nathair person, it is quite clear that that individual has absolutely no interest in dialogue or discussion; their only interest is in finding a variety of ways to sidestep, derail, misrepresent, and insult.

Hey, that’s okay. FfTB is going to collapse under the weight of its remarkably offensive mendacity.

Ah, don’t be sad, sycophants, I am sure it will recover, after a fashion, and become a sort of Skinheads (or Taliban) of Atheism kind of a place.

No, idiot, “SamStrange” was an experiment openly discussed on a few comment threads as to whether SallyStrange would be treated the same way by drive-by commenters with a male-identified handle as opposed to a female-identified one. There was no dishonesty, which is necessary for an accusation of sock puppeteering.

As for the rest of your post, well, just keep telling yourself that…it won’t make it true, but at least it will make the total emptiness of your worldview gnaw slightly less on your conscience.

And, in regards to the Nathair person, it is quite clear that that individual has absolutely no interest in dialogue or discussion; their only interest is in finding a variety of ways to sidestep, derail, misrepresent, and insult.

I posted a response to you days ago, July 10, 2012 at 9:32 PM according to the note. It is still in moderation, probably because I provided a couple of links in response to all your pleading that you “are unaware”. You are right about one thing, I don’t have a lot of interest in continuing with what you call “dialogue or discussion”. That reaction is not diminished by your (entirely non-specific) claims that I am intentionally sidestepping, derailing the conversation or misrepresenting you. That is all more than a little petty and insulting. Hmm, insulting. Oh, that’s right, you (entirely non-specifically) accused me of that too.

I would link to an explanation of psychological projection, but apparently links lock comments into permanent moderation. No matter though, it appears that you are a master of the concept already.

“I think that coining and repeatedly using the name “Twatson” in public posts IS harassment.”

That’s fine; that’s your right. I do not think it is harrassment. And that is my right.

For the record, there are only a small handful, maybe up to five (of which I am not one), people who use the term. And even they are using it less and less frequently. So, five people call Watson Twatson. Ooh! Earth shattering.

“And sneering. I thought you posted here that you disapprove of sneering.”

I don’t so much disapprove of sneering, in toto, as I disapprove of the degree to which Watson (and many others) uses it as a supposedly legitimate form of debate and dialogue. After all, she is supposed to be a sceptic and a critical thinker, not a teenager with NPD.

The context was “As much as I love these girls” – does it really matter if I had said women or girls or female of the species? I can understand that it can be used in a patronising manner but this wasnt one of them

So you dismiss what they’re saying out of hand, lord it over them about how they’re taking things too personally, and then insist that “girls” wasn’t meant in a patronizing manner?! You might not have MEANT it to be patronizing, but it’s pretty clear that’s the direction your snap judgments are going!

Why don’t you go read everything that’s ever been written in the last thirty years about the reclaiming of language by a marginalized group, and how that is a completely different phenomenon from the privileged group labeling an Other?

The context was “As much as I love these girls” – does it really matter if I had said women or girls or female of the species? I can understand that it can be used in a patronising manner but this wasnt one of them

Of course, that makes sense. And, naturally you think the same is true when you casually call black men “boy”, right? I’ll tell you what, you go try that out and get back to us on the response you get.

this particular blog is way to prententious for me

Expecting you not to casually denigrate half the people on the planet every time you open your mouth is not “pretension”, it’s decency.

Cos Im not upset by it, I realise that you guys (Ohh shock horror, I should of said male of the species) are just internet trolls and whilst I personally cant be bothered anymore I am not complaining about being a victim.

I think yourself and maybe a few others are more personally invested than you might think and from my position seem to be replying with more emotion and venom than well, than reason

2) Calling people trolls who have gone to great lengths to explain in detail why you’re wrong, misguided, and ignorant, with examples and clear explanations of the differences in their lived experience versus yours is pretty damn rich. It’s almost as if you’re trying to appropriate our difficulties with real trolls who have no interest in educating or communicating, to then claim false equivalence!

3) Aaah, the call of the privileged male douchebag! Hear it warble through the trees: “you’re emotional about this issue which directly affects your life and your loved ones, so of course you can’t possibly be rational, unlike meeeeeee….”

No, fool, you are showing your privilege by repeatedly refusing to consider other peoples’ life experiences and the different risks they face, by tone trolling people who are trying to explain the gaps in your understanding, by acting affronted that a panel did not conform sufficiently to your tastes, by derailing a discussion on how harassment is targeted at outspoken women, by insisting that your experience must be the valid one which must give you an adequate insight into all others, by policing others’s emotional states, by presuming your lack of emotion makes you more rational, and by writing off an entire panel as bullshit and then presuming to lecture us on nuanced, constructive discussion. So, you are not getting criticized for your identity–there are many men who have equal social privilege to you but don’t go around wielding it as callously and pompously as you are, but actually use it promote equality, and we don’t need to make an issue of their privilege because THEY aren’t acting like an embodiment of privilege! You are getting criticized for your BEHAVIOR, which is superficial, pompous, callous, anti-intellectual, silencing, and all-around shitty.

Speaking of behavior that’s all around shitty. It must be great to fancy yourself so unassailably right and so on the side of the downtrodden that you can be utterly crappy to people and think that you’re actually advancing a positive goal by doing so.

To LeftSidePositive
“You are getting criticized for your BEHAVIOR, which is superficial, pompous, callous, anti-intellectual, silencing, and all-around shitty.”

Back at chay, my complaint was that I didnt think the panel discussion was very good or interesting, that they missed many naunce’s and spent too much time on the trivial

thats my subjective opinion, its neither right nor wrong but you keep attacking me telling me that I am wrong that it was interesting that it was naunced and of the upmost importance and if I disagree then I am ignorant blah blah blah, refer above.

I still disagree – that doesnt make me anti feminist, that doesnt make me ignorant in relation to sexism and that doesnt mean i dont understand.

just chill mate, what exactly have i said that is degrading to women? what exactly are you trying to inform me about that would make me enjoy a panel discussion that I didnt enjoy?

there are many other panel discussions I didnt enjoy, the 4 horsemen at the melbourne GAC wasnt very good in my opinion because they jst reharshed topics we all agreed upon and have heard before – a different complaint but still, it is neither right nor wrong nor ignorant nor superficial – its my opinion

THEN TALK ABOUT THOSE FUCKING NUANCES. (no apostrophe, idiot!) You have not mentioned a single one of these deep thoughts that you think this talk should have. You’ve just torn it down. Post a SINGLE FUCKING INTELLIGENT COMMENT and then we might take you seriously. Just fucking TRY, goddammit!

Do you have any idea how stupid you look when you just say the word “nuance” but don’t actually offer any?!

and spent too much time on the trivial

This from the dumbshit whose response was to simply call the whole thing bullshit and just say they’re taking it too personally!

thats my subjective opinion, its neither right nor wrong

Drop the fucking postmodernism, please. Just because an opinion is subjective does not mean it is excused from being substantiated, nor does it absolve you from trying to communicate why your opinion has merit. If you don’t care whether your opinion is right or wrong YOU HAVE NO FUCKING REASON TO BE COMMENTING.

but you keep attacking me

Oh, stuff it. Your reasoning is being criticized on the internet. Deal with it.

telling me that I am wrong that it was interesting

When exactly did we make any claims about its interest? It may be interesting *for us*, but the majority of what we’ve been trying to communicate to you is that the perspectives offered in the talk are valid, rational, and constructive to creating better and more accessible internet spaces. Whether or not you find this interesting is beyond my control.

that it was naunced

That’s not what I said. I said if YOU thought the discussion was insufficiently nuanced, YOU should actually offer some nuance to back up your claims about what the talk was lacking. If you throw around the word nuance but can’t seem to apply it to this talk, you just come off as a petulant child looking for an excuse to silence women talking about their mistreatment.

and of the upmost importance

Has anyone said “upmost”? Probably not, because it isn’t a word….of course, no one has claimed it’s of the utmost importance either. Just that it is of SOME importance–and people determined to silence women online IS important, because that makes it harder for women to succeed online relative to men, it is more taxing and draining, it drives valuable commenters away from blogs because they don’t want to deal with all the shit, it convinces some women to stop blogging when the threats get too overwhelming or too credible, and it treats women as second-class citizens. Do you not acknowledge that’s important?

if I disagree then I am ignorant blah blah blah, refer above.

No, we have said if you disagree ABOUT THE SPECIFIC POINT that internet harassment is trivial, then you are ignorant, because you are completely unaware of the toll it takes on those who try to blog about controversial topics, and the unique and focused harassment they receive and the cultural context in which this harassment operates. We have provided you multiple perspectives on WHY you are ignorant, and it’s not “just because you disagree”–it’s because the reason you disagree is you lack basic facts about others’ experience.

that doesnt mean i dont understand.

Then try to say something worthwhile that actually communicates some understanding. Because ignorant, superficial claptrap will not be redeemed by simply asserting that you understand.

just chill mate,

Go fuck yourself.

what exactly have i said that is degrading to women?

Um, that whole bit about how they were taking things too personally? Agreeing with someone equating garden-variety trash-talk with focused sexual harassment? Pompously insisting that a talk can’t be good if it doesn’t cater to your particular interests? Dismissing every woman here who has tried to educate you about what harassment means in their lives?

what exactly are you trying to inform me about that would make me enjoy a panel discussion that I didnt enjoy?

Your enjoyment is irrelevant. Your RESPECT for these women speaking out about a serious problem in our community would be appreciated, however.

there are many other panel discussions I didnt enjoy, the 4 horsemen at the melbourne GAC wasnt very good in my opinion

And how many comments did you leave about how it wasn’t good? How strenuously did you argue with those who felt it was an important perspective in the movement? Did you assert in your first comment that the melbourne GAC panelists were just bullshit and dismiss one of their central theses out of hand? Did you declare that the speakers were wrong or irrational in their views? Did you presume to tell the speakers that they were wrong about their own social experiences? Because that’s what you’re doing here.

Dude, my support was watching the video and then commenting on this blog

Yeah I left comments against the Atheist foundation videos I believe, I also sent in feedback to the conference (They asked everyone to do this)

“How strenuously did you argue with those who felt it was an important perspective in the movement? – not that strenously, about as much effort as i did here, you know 2 min replys whilst on computer at work

Did you assert in your first comment that the melbourne GAC panelists were just bullshit and dismiss one of their central theses out of hand? – I didnt dismiss the discussion out of hand dude, I think you may be confused here and whilst i cant remember my exact words I said it was a bit of a waste of time where we could of had another speaker we hadnt heard from.

Did you declare that the speakers were wrong or irrational in their views? again mate, I never said any of the speakers here were irrational, I did disagree with dawkins about asking people direct questions about their faith

Did you presume to tell the speakers that they were wrong about their own social experiences? again I havent done this, I’m not sure what you are talking about

Because that’s what you’re doing here.” – again, just chill out, i dont think I am as evil as you are trying to make out

If you didn’t dismiss the discussion out of hand, then there is no comparison to what you’re doing here. So why are you bringing this up as a distraction?! No one is complaining that the Skepchickon panel wasn’t your favorite talk–we’re objecting to how you just ignored everything they said about why harassment does weigh on people, why people are rational and functional for having normal human responses to harassment, and how that harassment bleeds into real life…and you just fucking said “well, don’t take it so personally!” What a fucking ignorant load of codswallop! You just completely ignored the fact that the WHOLE POINT OF THE TALK was to say why your attitude is wrong…and yet you respond to nothing in the talk, and just crow your platitudes from square one. If you didn’t do this with the GAC talk–if you could realize it wasn’t your cup of tea but not necessarily wrong, then you are responding to it in a VASTLY different way (and, gee, I wonder why?!)

Also, if you’re still wondering why we’re pointing out that your a privileged asshat, here’s another one for the file: when someone is trying to communicate to you why what you’re doing is problematic, it is a fucking asinine thing to do to just brush off their stated concerns with “chill out.” It shows your too fucking lazy to even consider their interpretation of why your behavior is harmful, which in turn shows you just plain don’t care whether or not you’re harming people.

Sorry, dude is a non-gender specific term to me, i’ll use mate from now on if thats cool.

“we’re objecting to how you just ignored everything they said about why harassment does weigh on people”

When did I do this?

You keep accusing me of ignoring everything they talked about, dismissing it out of hand.

I think you may have gotten worked up about a lot of other commenters, understandably, and are now projecting that onto me.

“well, don’t take it so personally!” I think if you re-read my comments you will see the distinction I made between everyday trolling and pro-longed harrasment and how its important to recognise the difference and that they shouldnt be handled in the same manner. – so again, I think you are over simplifying what I have said and I think your angst is maybe misplaced

No moria did pretty much the same as you have, no doubt I have gaps in my knowledge on many subjects but maybe not the gaps you think. It seems that both of you have been aggresively telling me things I agree, all whilst name calling, bullying, and telling me how ignorant I am for not agreeing with them when I mostly agreed with them – again im not playing the victim, i only highlight so you can see how this might be hypocritical

things like “You think you have all the answers, well guess what, just because you dont recognise your a privilaged male….” – I never said I had all the answers and whats with the pigeon holing any dissent as radical feminists or privilaged male?

or

” You called the discussion “bullshit,” which means you didn’t listen, you made a decision based on your own beliefs instead of empirical evidence as represented by several prominent atheist bloggers” – Calling something BS doesnt equate to not listening?

Again I understand why the angst, lets just direct it towards people who actually deserve it or something useful

telling me how ignorant I am for not agreeing with them when I mostly agreed with them

You started your first comment @17 by saying the video was “bullshit” and you supported your opinion (which you are entitled to have) by saying that you thought they shouldn’t be concerned about the abusive emails and threats that they were receiving.

I disagree with your ability to have a better opinion than the panelists about their email, since I don’t think you’ve read it, and they’ve at least read or seen the ones that they didn’t auto-delete. I hear that it’s your opinion that words in an email can’t hurt someone physically, but knowing that many many people enjoy thinking about hurting you and want to scare you cannot be any kind of pleasant. Getting lots of hate mail, some of it explicit, over a long time has got to suck. Some people will put in crap like “I know where you live”, etc. For people who are semi-public features with scheduled appearances at conferences, the possibility that a hater could show up and attack them, even verbally, is a real possibility.

But if most of your views aren’t inline with the negative posters above, that’s nice to know. I would hate to think that everyone on the internet is on fire with anger.

“I disagree with your ability to have a better opinion than the panelists about their email, since I don’t think you’ve read it, and they’ve at least read or seen the ones that they didn’t auto-delete” – yeah mate, I never said I had a better opinion on any subject, better how? I dont know what you are talking about

“But if most of your views aren’t inline with the negative posters above, that’s nice to know” – Thanks, I think a lot of people are responding to me with that in mind

I mean the person who commented just before you said “The panel missed important points which I will never address but you should still totally thank me for being an ally.” – This sort of thing is annoying because I did adress them and I’m not anyones ally nor enemy, I’m jst a guy who watched a panel discussion and didnt think it was very good – I’m not saying they are wrong, I’m not making any absolutist claims about how superiour I am or my opinion is. I just thought that this was an important topic for discussion but that it was poorly executed – thats what my original comment was about and perhaps I didnt emphasise this enough considering the obvious anger that many of the commenters have but responders keep going from “You didnt enjoy it” to “Where’s your evidence?” or “Who made you the author of feminism?”

I also never said they shouldnt be concerned about threatening emails adn I made a clear distinction between Business as usual troll comments and harrasment such as going on multiple forums and stalking or prolonged abuse – but even in your response mate you stated “I disagree with your ability to have a better opinion than the panelists about their email” and I think this is an unfair representation of what I said as I never mentioned their email

again I understand the frustration and sometimes that type of response is the only response that might be affective but I feel we should be wary of being hypocritical in our behaviour and wary of judging to quickly

“My complain is that their are naunces and points of contention that could have been bought up but were not, the panelists all agreed on trivial issues the majority of us all agree upon.”

That was you further up the thread implying that you had a list or something of nuanced points that would have made this discussion better. Instead of making those nuanced points you chose to simply say the panel was bullshit. I reread the rest of your comments and I failed to find those nuanced points of yours. If you could provide the comment # where you feel you made these nuanced points I will retract my statement.

“I also never said they shouldnt be concerned about threatening emails”

What you did say was

“My complaint was that it didnt go very in depth and a lot of the issues were trivial such as getting rape threats over the internet…”

So internet rape threats are trivial, but you don’t think you’ve said people shouldn’t be concerned about them? Maybe we are using different definitions of the word trivial, or maybe you’re a douche

Continued from the above quote.“…however I receive rape threats all the time and death threats and people telling me to commit suicide and people just throwing angst at me because I have a subjective opinion that differs from their subjective opinion about how entertaining and informative a panel discussion was/is”

Did you mean to imply that people here in this comment thread have issued death/rape threats towards you? Clumsy writing or maybe you really are a douche.

I find your comment really unhelpful in terms of creating an interesting discussion, I’m sure you disagree and thats fine.

“Did you mean to imply that people here in this comment thread have issued death/rape threats towards you? Clumsy writing or maybe you really are a douche.” – just clumsy writing mate, you seem to be looking for a reason to be angry at someone, just chill out a bit

I don’t really understand how to tell the difference between “business as usual troll comments” and really serious ones. I mean sometimes some “mean” things that I read are pathetic, and some are exaggerated to be funny, and some are badly spelled, and some are grotesque. I can spot those differences. If a bunch of angry mail and threats came to my mailbox, I could tell by my gut which ones were disgusting, and by my pulse rate which ones were scary. But I couldn’t really tell which of the ones that scared me really were from a dangerous person and which ones came from a person who likes to run his mouth a lot. I don’t really believe I could separate them accurately. (Heck, I couldn’t even tell which insults are original and which are quoting South Park.)

I think you raise an excellant point here, it is the same dilemma we would face whether it is face to face or via email or snail mail. Although I would think that if someone had taken the trouble to send you a threat via snail mail it should be taken more seriously than an email for the simple reason that it takes more time, ie this is obviously not just off the cuff, so if someone has sat down and thought about it and after contemplation decieded that its still a good idea to send through threats then we have good reason to take them seriously.

I could only highlight black and white cases here that we would all agree on, the interesting part of the discussion is the grey areas and there are many factors that would need to be looked at.

just to clarify when I refer to business as usual trolling I am reffering to youtube comments or blog comments that are once off obviously immature rash reactions, again obvious troll is obvious but once you start receiving multiple comments (more than one), then we need to be more cautious.

This point you raised is the crux of the discussion in my view and I dont think any blanket response would appropriately address the issue, thanks for the response

I’d just like to say that reading some of these comments has been eye-opening. I’d also like to say that ashamedly I’m guilty of making some of these empty arguments myself. But over time with an open mind I’ve changed my stance (cool story!) Anyway, in the interests of changing minds, perhaps we should remember that a lot of people hold opinions based on heresay and very little thought or for whatever reason just haven’t been around the block (like myself) and explain the issues sans the bashing. Probably less satisfying, but I’m sure it’s more effective for those who just get more defensive (and thus less likely to change their mind) when attacked. My two cents.

1) It’s actually not okay to tell people who are experiencing poor treatment what the appropriate response should be. Moreover, many of us believed for all too long that if we were perfectly-behaved and polite we could sway people, and we learned we’d be accused of being strident no matter how nice we are, so we might as well go all-out.

2) The assumption that nice tones always work better is not actually as well-validated as you think it is–the real world is actually more complicated than that. Someone said it beautifully here:

I also find that I’ve learned the most from these discussions when commenters have been rude. I end up standing in the position of the person whose wrong-headedness is under attack, and I feel the slap as well. It wakes me up to a misconception I’ve overlooked.

3) The person who is arguing is often so entrenched they refuse to change their minds. A lot of these debates don’t happen to change the opponent’s mind (especially when they’re showing a willful refusal to engage honestly!), they happen to convince the lurkers, and it’s important to show that certain prejudice and dishonesty will not be tolerated in a space. It also shows the lurkers just how offensive the other person is being–if some of the lurkers are privileged with regard to the topic at hand, they might not realize how bigoted someone is being, but seeing it as worthy of a massive rhetorical smackdown actually is important to show such behavior is outside the sphere of legitimate debate (see above).

4) If someone seems to be genuinely confused, and is at least arguing in good faith and not derailing, I will generally not flame them…but if someone is engaging in persistently sloppy thinking, is misrepresenting points or outright lying, refuses to acknowledge points already made, or just says something beyond-the-pale bigoted, I’m not going to pretend that’s within the sphere of legitimate debate.

5) Occasionally I’ve screwed up and been rather pointed to someone who turned out not to be a troll. And you know what’s amazing–that person DIDN’T dig down!! They actually thanked me for my explanation, even though I pretty blatantly insulted their commitment to human rights!! (And I’m sorry, but Disqus comment linking sucks, so you’ll have to show all comments and ctrl-F to find the reply…sorry, don’t know how to link it better.)

1) It’s actually not okay to tell people who are experiencing poor treatment what the appropriate response should be. Moreover, many of us believed for all too long that if we were perfectly-behaved and polite we could sway people, and we learned we’d be accused of being strident no matter how nice we are, so we might as well go all-out.

2) The assumption that nice tones always work better is not actually as well-validated as you think it is–the real world is actually more complicated than that. Someone said it beautifully over on AXP’s “mass hysteria” post:

I also find that I’ve learned the most from these discussions when commenters have been rude. I end up standing in the position of the person whose wrong-headedness is under attack, and I feel the slap as well. It wakes me up to a misconception I’ve overlooked.

3) The person who is arguing is often so entrenched they refuse to change their minds. A lot of these debates don’t happen to change the opponent’s mind (especially when they’re showing a willful refusal to engage honestly!), they happen to convince the lurkers, and it’s important to show that certain prejudice and dishonesty will not be tolerated in a space. It also shows the lurkers just how offensive the other person is being–if some of the lurkers are privileged with regard to the topic at hand, they might not realize how bigoted someone is being, but seeing it as worthy of a massive rhetorical smackdown actually is important to show such behavior is outside the sphere of legitimate debate (see above).

4) If someone seems to be genuinely confused, and is at least arguing in good faith and not derailing, I will generally not flame them…but if someone is engaging in persistently sloppy thinking, is misrepresenting points or outright lying, refuses to acknowledge points already made, or just says something beyond-the-pale bigoted, I’m not going to pretend that’s within the sphere of legitimate debate.

5) Occasionally I’ve screwed up and been rather pointed to someone who turned out not to be a troll. And you know what’s amazing–that person DIDN’T dig down!! They actually thanked me for my explanation, even though I pretty blatantly insulted their commitment to human rights!! (And I’m sorry, but Disqus comment linking sucks, so you’ll have to show all comments and ctrl-F to find the reply…sorry, don’t know how to link it better.)

There is no reply function so I will have to answer your post here. I can’t refute your post because you seem to be arguing with yourself. If you want to knock down slavery and racist strawmen fine though it has nothing to do with my post. The way to deal with trolls is to not feed them, making a big fuck off video about not feeding the trolls is actually feeding them. The whole video is an oxymoron and everyone in it might as well have drawn a bullseye on their chest with the words ‘trolls aim here.’ Everyone in that video have shown trolls that they can get a rise out of them and you have all just compounded the very problem you are trying to deal with.

The way to deal with trolls is to ignore them you know the whole ‘don’t feed the trolls’ thing. I and I should think everybody else thinks nobody deserves to be trolled so I not sure where you are getting that from. Though short of hunting them down individually and sending them to bed without any supper, then ignoring them is the only solution unfortunately.

Completely agree when obvious troll is obvious usually the easiet thing to do is ignore, sometimes setting an example by replying and setting the comment to the top of the video or post might help highlight to others why trolling is dumb or not as interesting as engaging but you are right that you cannot control them all.

I think what they are attempting to talk abobut in this discussion is not actually trolls, its harrasment and abuse. Of course by labelling the video “Dont feed the trolls” it makes it a little confusing and I dont feel they cleared that up throughout the video.

For instance, someone following you through multiple forums and trolling you is moving beyond trolling, it is then harrasment and should be dealt with – how? not sure, I think the idea of ganging up a bunch of your fellow whatever-ists to beat them up online is probably not a great method (due to the inherent hypocrisy in it – even though you may try justify by saying “But we do it for good”) but I dont know of any other real or practical options

Aren’t you aware that these harassers and abusers are invariably downplayed as “just trolls” by those not getting the abuse?! Aren’t you aware that people from traditionally-marginalized groups have a hell of a time getting people in general to take their harassment and abuse seriously? Aren’t you aware that this is THE POINT of naming the video “don’t feed the trolls” to highlight the absurdity of this mentality?! Did you seriously not understand this?! Really?!

“By the way, I think you need to look up what “hypocrisy” means–accusations of hypocrisy are only valid if the behavior engaged in is of equal or analogous moral standing to the one which is being denounced. *Denouncing overtly hostile or prejudiced behavior* is not morally equivalent to *Bashing someone for an unchangeable trait* and if you didn’t collapse the whole nature of these communication into something apparently only about numbers of people speaking and their tone, you would pretty clearly see that.” – Once again dude, I agree with you, this was not what I said and I’m glad we agree

“Aren’t you aware that these harassers and abusers are invariably downplayed as “just trolls” by those not getting the abuse?! Aren’t you aware that people from traditionally-marginalized groups have a hell of a time getting people in general to take their harassment and abuse seriously? Aren’t you aware that this is THE POINT of naming the video “don’t feed the trolls” to highlight the absurdity of this mentality?! Did you seriously not understand this?! Really?!

By the way, we’re still waiting for all your vaunted “nuance”…” – I am not aware of anyone who considers written rape threats as “Just Trolling” and perhaps that happens but once again I agree with you that these peeps are fools and shouldnt be taken seriously

Also I am not aware of anyone who thinks one off youtube comments qualify as harrasment, let me know if you think there are, but I would put both of these groups under the banner of “Out of touch with reality”

Now thats all very black and white and easy, personally I think if the panel had gotten that out of the way at the start it would have been a lot clearer – please dont ask for my evidence for this, its just my opinion – I wouldnt even know how to give evidence for this. I think we agree that where it gets complicated is the grey area’s, and this would be why we encounter the issue you bought up which is abuse or harrasment being dismissed as just trolling. This I think we agree upon as well, so yes I am awware that people sometimes dismiss abuse or harrasment as jst trolling but this may be because until all the details of the situation are given it is very hard to discern whether someone is over-reacting or under-reacting or has goldilocked the situation – thus its always best to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I’m interested to hear your thoughts however comments like this = “we’re still waiting for all your vaunted “nuance”…” – what I said was I didnt think the pabnel had very much naunce – I wasnt claiming that I do and I once again feel that you are either trying to get a negative reaction out of me so or you are fishing for a reason to be negative yourself, again correct me if you think I’m mistaken or have taken something the wrong way. Peace Out

Once again dude, I agree with you, this was not what I said and I’m glad we agree

Bullshit. You said: I think the idea of ganging up a bunch of your fellow whatever-ists to beat them up online is probably not a great method (due to the inherent hypocrisy in it – even though you may try justify by saying “But we do it for good”) YOU SAID it was hypocritical for feminists, etc., to call out trolls. There is absolutely NO OTHER MEANING of that sentence of yours. If you *didn’t* think it was hypocritical, why the fuck did you use the term “inherent hypocrisy”?!

And you know what? I’m getting really fucking sick of you saying indefensible shit and then refusing to take ownership and just pretending you’ve always agreed with those of us telling you off. It is intellectually dishonest and a fucking waste of time.

I am not aware of anyone who considers written rape threats as “Just Trolling”

Well then maybe you should SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LISTEN TO WOMEN. We are telling you that we do in fact get serious harassment brushed off all the time. We are telling you that it is extremely difficult to be respected when we describe how this harassment affects our ability to communicate online. And where the fuck did you get appointed Head Appraiser Of Rape Threats to decide that only written ones get taken seriously? How much experience do you have in dealing with electronic rape threats and how can you possibly be sure that your experience is an adequate stand-in for that of others?

once again I agree with you that these peeps are fools and shouldnt be taken seriously

Once again you show yourself to be a shallow, intellectually incurious ass. And, you fucking slimy wanker, DO NOT say exactly the opposite of what I’m saying and preface it with “I agree with you.” That is fucking dishonest. The video already described why it is factually incorrect and dangerous to write off these violent threats as “fools” who “shouldn’t be taken seriously.” You know, for all your whining about this video not reaching your standards of “nuance,” you seemed to have missed a lot of the points they presented.

Also I am not aware of anyone who thinks one off youtube comments qualify as harrasment,

You know, if you would actually fucking LISTEN TO WOMEN, you would know that these youtube comments ARE NOT “one-off,” are often coordinated amongst multiple users across multiple fora, and you would have some fucking empathy for the fact that avalanches of hostile youtube comments do create a very harassing atmosphere.

but I would put both of these groups under the banner of “Out of touch with reality”

Let me make this very clear:

You are the problem.

You are the problem.

You are the problem.

YOU ARE THE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!!

Who the fuck are you to say what reality is for people who have vastly more experience and are at much greater risk from the issues under discussion?? Your callous, ignorant, selfish, pompous bullshit is what enables trolls.

Now thats all very black and white and easy,

Yeah, it’s really easy to see an issue in such stark terms when you don’t live with the effects and don’t understand a fucking thing about it!

personally I think if the panel had gotten that out of the way at the start it would have been a lot clearer

What you don’t seem to be understanding is that the panel DID discuss these issues, and they were communicating why your pathetic belief that you can easily distinguish real threats from just trolling is wrong. You think they were “unclear” because you are just too self-centered and intellectually lazy to consider that someone might actually be criticizing your point of view, which your shallow little brain cannot even imagine not being widely accepted.

– please dont ask for my evidence for this, its just my opinion – I wouldnt even know how to give evidence for this.

Then fuck off. Btw, there is plenty of evidence against your assessment of the clarity of the panel: apart from a few MRAs, everyone else seems to get it, so I think the problem with clarity is actually in your understanding. Not to mention the fact that you have rather embarrassingly misstated some of the main points of the panel (why it was titled as it was, the role of apparently minor internet harassment, etc.), so that is very strong evidence that what is lacking is not the panel, but rather your understanding.

so yes I am awware that people sometimes dismiss abuse or harrasment as jst trolling

YOU JUST SAID THE OPPOSITE above. You are either a really shitty writer or a really shitty thinker, and probably both. Maybe you should just shut up and read for a while, because this shape-shifting of your position is getting fucking tiresome and you are not adding anything to the discussion.

until all the details of the situation are given it is very hard to discern whether someone is over-reacting or under-reacting or has goldilocked the situation

Or, maybe you could stop being such a pompous judgmental asshat who polices other people’s reactions to THEIR OWN LIVES which you are not living. Maybe you should shut the fuck up and respect what others tell you they are going through, and don’t hold your support for someone getting harassed hostage to whether or not you approve of all the minutiae of how they respond.

thus its always best to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Like when you called the whole panel bullshit and shamed them for taking things “too personally.”

what I said was I didnt think the pabnel had very much naunce – I wasnt claiming that I do

So if you don’t have any nuanced insight into this situation, how the fuck are you qualified to assess whether someone else has adequately nuanced insight? You haven’t even been able to formulate a fucking QUESTION that you would like to see addressed in more detail, apart from things like the title of the talk that you just embarrassingly misunderstood. Right now you just sound like a 4-year-old who just overheard the word “nuance” and is throwing it around without really understanding it, and all your wriggling out of your old positions and oversimplifying what people are telling you about the online harassment they experience is adding nothing to the discussion, so I strongly suggest you educate yourself quietly and stop bothering us.

By the way, I think you need to look up what “hypocrisy” means–accusations of hypocrisy are only valid if the behavior engaged in is of equal or analogous moral standing to the one which is being denounced. *Denouncing overtly hostile or prejudiced behavior* is not morally equivalent to *Bashing someone for an unchangeable trait* and if you didn’t collapse the whole nature of these communication into something apparently only about numbers of people speaking and their tone, you would pretty clearly see that.

The mention of slavery was not a strawman; it was an ANALOGY to explain how utterly fucked up your simplistic views on “disagreement” and “authoritarianism” are. Here, I will spell it out for you very, very slowly:

1) You trivialized the nature of sexism and online harassment by pretending it was just “different opinions”

2) You said that if people all had the same opinions it would be the world of religious sheep and/or communists.

3) I showed that there are at least some issues on which a healthy society maintains only one acceptable position, such as “slavery is bad.”

4) If you accept that “slavery is bad” is an issue on which all decent people have to agree in order to BE decent people (and I sure as hell hope you do!), then I have knocked down your categorical claim that expecting people to believe the same thing on an issue must be religious or communist.

5) If you accept #3, then #4 essentially follows that not all issues have multiple legitimate viewpoints. Therefore, it is invalid to simply denounce the insistence of one viewpoint on an issue without first establishing that it is not one of the subset of viewpoints on which there is only one decent answer.

6) You may or may not agree that “It is unfair and unacceptable that women on the Internet get the disproportionate and targeted harassment that they do” is a viewpoint with only one right answer, but, as per #5, just answering with blanket statements about “everyone [feeling] the same as me” is invalid, so the appropriate level of analysis is to assess the merits of the statement on harassment to decide whether it is actually an issue on which there is more than one legitimate viewpoint.

There…was that really so hard? Did we really need a 6-point delineation to understand that?

Similarly, “black people are the real racists” was used as an ANALOGY (not a strawman!) to “feminists are sexist against men.” In both cases the marginalized group speaking up about their mistreatment by the dominant group is falsely equated with the mistreatment itself. Really, this is not that hard.

Finally, did you even WATCH the video?! At all?? The title “don’t feed the trolls” is intentionally ironic. The WHOLE FUCKING POINT of the video is how “don’t feed the trolls” is incredibly stupid advice! The video wasn’t even addressed to trolls–it was addressed to idiots like you who ignore the seriousness of online harassment and spout off platitudes about “just ignore them.” They discussed at length precisely why that doesn’t work, and why that is enabling to the more virulent trolls they receive. So, when the whole video is about why your soundbites are stupid, and you just repeat the same soundbite in response, and don’t even seem to be aware of who the video is talking about, I have to seriously wonder if you even watched it??

The way to deal with trolls is to ignore them you know the whole ‘don’t feed the trolls’ thing. I and I should think everybody else thinks nobody deserves to be trolled so I not sure where you are getting that from. Though short of hunting them down individually and sending them to bed without any supper, then ignoring them is the only solution unfortunately.

No. This is not true, and the reason why and what else there is to do is discussed at length in the video in the OP.

This was a good video. I do think people who disagree sometimes get labeled trolls as a way to dismiss arguments. As someone who is sex-positive and argues for sex workers rights I have been banned for saying S&M is not rape.

If you find yourself being labeled as a troll and you feel it is unfair what advice is there? All I know is to try and be polite.

If she was visibly thin, I would have asked the question, ‘Has she been ill?’. But considering that she is recently married HAS put on what appears to be a substantial weight gain, its a perfectly normal question to enquire if she was with child. Or is it not PC to even do that anymore?
You people are way too touchy.

but instead i argued that you didn’t touch on the morality of three wolves preaching dietary habits to sheep.

But this is nonsense. Why should I discuss the morality of wolves when I do not in fact think those in question are wolves? If debaters do not accept each others’ premises, debate does not move forward until those premises are accepted or modified to be mutually acceptable.

Third, when instead of arguing for or against the presence of Mrs Rebecca Watson in the panel

To be accurate, I was arguing against johngreg’s arguing against RW’s inclusion in the panel, because his objections were unsupported.

you argue against skeptical elevator endemic pick up artists,

This is simply untrue. I used the excuses of pro-elevator pick up artists AS AN EXAMPLE of an argument that deserved to be mocked and dismissed. johngreg complained RW dismissed arguments, and I countered that with, actually, some arguments don’t deserve anything but dismissal. I am not saying that all (or even many or most) critics of RW do pick people up in elevators, and there’s an easy way you can tell it’s an example: “when [this denotes a conditional statement] the people disagreeing with her are saying things like [this denotes a mention of one item from one of many] “Well, if I can’t corner women in elevators, then how can I get laid?” (or words to that effect) [this denotes paraphrasing and some variability in possible statements],…”

you are actually arguing against a straw man.

So apparently you don’t understand basic English grammar as well as the definition of a strawman? By the way, pretending that my argument (take note how strawmanning must by definition be presented as a statement of the opponent’s argument!) as though it were about “endemic” (a word you added out of nowhere, when it wasn’t even an IDEA I expressed!) PUAs instead of about stupid statements, you are actually strawmanning ME.

but seeing that you insist on bringing her up,

I did not–johngreg did!

she doesn’t answer any critic with a counter-retort and instead resorts to memes, phallic ASCII renders and other seasoned paraphernalia.

Okay, now you’re strawmanning Rebecca (Note: this means you are misrepresenting her argument by accusing her of saying something indefensible that bears a superficial resemblance to what she actually said). Rebecca is not advocating answering “any critic” in this way, she is answering TROLLS in this way. Trolls =/= critics, and this changes the entire nature of the argument. The person she talks about sending a meme to is someone whose ENTIRE argument consisted of “Why are you still talking? Nobody cares what you say.” There is literally nothing of value in this statement. There is literally no content TO debate, if one were so inclined. This is nothing more than completely vapid trolling, and responding with the gravity it deserves (a dancing gif!) is perfectly appropriate.

I notice you then go on for several sentences being aghast at how Rebecca isn’t constructive in responding to criticism. Again: YOU ARE STRAWMANNING. She is discussing how she deals with TROLLS (there’s an easy way to tell…the video is called “Don’t feed the trolls!”), who are by definition NOT critics with anything worthwhile to engage with. Now, if you want to claim that there are constructive critics that she treats in this way, that is a claim for which you will have to provide evidence: cite the communication, and make an argument as to why that particular criticism is worthwhile. I won’t categorically say it’s impossible, but the fact that neither johngreg nor you have been able to do so yet is, to say the least, telling.

based on what she herself describes in this video as her habits at handling criticism,

Again, describing handling trolling =/= describing handling criticism. However, in this video she actually DOES discuss a matter of legitimate criticism she received, and she says (at 0:46:18): ”And, you know, I’ve been called out on some things; that’s how I know about it. I’ve called people crazy: ‘You’re crazy!’ Someone shoots me a message, like: ‘That’s not cool. I’m crazy. Like, don’t…Like, I take pills for that…like, don’t–you’re just an asshole!’” So, it would appear that the way Rebecca Watson ACTUALLY deals with legitimate criticism is to think about it, learn from it, incorporate it into her worldview, and then educate others about it.

You next argue that what she does in reaction to her detractors in fine because we do it with creationists because they [too] are simply beneath our notice and their arguments are hopelessly stupid. That’s appeal to common practice, composition and division in one nice little package.

There is actually an important difference with the argument I made and the argument you ascribed to me (which is known by a term called “strawmanning”):

My actual argument was (and is):

1) We both agree that mocking creationists is perfectly acceptable (If by chance you do not agree with this, we might want to argue that in more depth elsewhere, as it would derail this thread. But, I’m operating on the assumption that the vast majority of people who are OUTRAGED!!1!!!1!!1!eleventy!!1! That RW is using a belittling tone are totes fine with that tone being used at creationists. There’s even a vlogger who has some pretty popular videos called “Why do people laugh at creationists?” and he seems to be much-beloved by the anti-Watson crowd. You may have heard of him…I think it’s Lightningh4nd, or something like that?).

2) If it is acceptable to mock even one viewpoint, it cannot be categorically true that mocking an opposing viewpoint is always bad.

3) If mocking an opposing viewpoint is not always bad, simply stating in outraged tone that someone mocks an opposing viewpoint is not an argument.

4) To have a valid argument, one must show that a viewpoint was mocked, and make a case for why that viewpoint does not belong to the subset of viewpoints that is acceptable to mock. We may or may not agree on that point, but this is where a productive discussion can take place, not with simply being *outraged* at tone.

Mock the idea, not the one who expresses it. Explain why the idea it’s wrong and if he still keeps it as true, mock on.

I actually think this only applies to a subset of disagreements. When someone is generally decent and has limited disagreeable ideas that are being argued in good faith, then yes, by all means limit your criticisms strictly to the ideas. HOWEVER, people’s ideas do not simply exist independently of the kind of person that they are. If a person’s argument relies on deeply prejudiced and inaccurate stereotypes, or blatantly disregards others’ human rights, that says something about the sort of person ze is, or at least that ze has some personality traits that are seriously deleterious to the whole! If someone’s “argument” consists of telling you how you ought to be raped, that is quite indicative of who ze is as a person. If someone insists on making claims without evidence, willfully misrepresenting arguments, and derailing discussions, the arguments and behavior are a product of the personality, not just randomly-acquired adjuncts. In these cases, if we were to limit ourselves to just looking at the “ideas” and not at the fevered minds that make them, we would fail to address a very important part of the problem, and it would allow trolls to maintain greater social standing in the community than they deserve.

proof that your characterization of all of Mrs Watson critics is true

This is a strawman. I never said that *ALL* of RW’s critics are like this; in fact I never made any claims about the prevalence of this sentiment, nor indeed did I suggest that all (or many or most) of her critics make the same objection–the vast majority of what I’d seen were similarly lacking in logic and basic human decency, but that is not the only line of argument against her, nor did I say it was.

Again, it was AN EXAMPLE. You called it “unverified” so I showed you that yes, it is a real argument, and yes, it really is that stupid.

aah!! it took me 2 hours to read all the comments and ‘m so glad I did.

LSP – i crazy love your writing! lurker convert +1

You might have wondered at Kahfre – how can a dumbwit be hyper stupid and still act with supremacy? Shouldn’t he know his place?
Hardly you would have(I just hope) seen some one like this –
Someone who could blabber for hours but could not make a single valid point or answer a single direct question, someone who effortlessly betrays his sexism-ignorance-maskedtheism(nature “made” me, “gave” me roles) and makes a pretentious graceful exit convincing “only himself” that he has achieved something.

And what more, not even the pleasure of some juicy argument or at least a yummy strawman? What a pity!

I have an explanation for this, but I guess it sounds racist.
hmm, if I make a generalized offensive statement about a race, and belong to the same race, is it still racist?

I think that idiot is an Indian, because all these are too familiar to me.
At some places – when you were wondering – “What did he just say? WTH is he talking”, I could grasp easily.
This includes “**victimization**” (and “you” are so daft that he has to highlight his keywords, ha ha ha)
and champion-feminists'(MEN’s) real agenda(deprived men trying to get some)
and almost all the rest of his nonsense vomit.
I get it, because it is all so much familiar to me.

Either Indian, or some similar country where patriarchal mindset is 200 years behind(200 is just to give an idea – you can’t compare like that – its worse) .

Misogyny is the root of all evils – and no country can beat India in that. So I make a 99.9999% guess that he is Indian.

I do believe religion is popular and widely accepted because of the blatant misogyny in all religions.

Actually Islam/Christianity – I can see misogyny at the very roots.
Hinduism(my denounced religion) – definitely must have been there – just too long back and poorly documented to confirm.

Religion is not a greater social evil where I used to live, but casteism is (which is an offshoot of religion – and hence can be considered as religion in western sense ), if women are empowered (as it is happening in micro-miniscule-scale in recent years), there will be more and more inter-caste and inter-religious marriages and caste/religion break ups will automatically dissolve in today’s world.

I think women’s education/liberation has a big part in diluting medieval Christianity and making it toothless, and the same will happen to Islam – if Muslim women become liberated.

//no country can beat India in misogyny //
a topical(BAD choice of word but unfortunately true) public molestation of a teenaged girl made me blurt out this.
But of course, the first place does go to the Islamic nations – “Dear Muslima” does have it worse than all put together.

This must be bizarro world logic. You yourself said Greg Laden “really did engage in bullying behavior” and argued (for comic relief, i hope) that his presence in the panel is due to booking. I accept that your view of Mrs Watson is that she’s not a troll and that Stephanie Zvan may be a innocent bystander, but how do you reconcile your own affirmation, one being that Greg Laden “really did engage in bullying behavior” and the other being “I do not in fact think those in question are wolves”. FWIW, even though at least one of the panelists was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the debaters did accept each others premises or at least accepted Greg Laden’s presence without a problem.
That being said, i maintain my opinion that not addressing johngreg’s main argument and instead going against a much easier target (elevator endemic PUAs – PUAs that are endemic to the elevator, i only explained the joke because you didn’t seem to catch it) is straw manning, no matter how many CAPS LOCKs, bolds or [square brackets] you use to deny that.
In the end i must say that i find it amusing that, in order to combat my affirmation that one of your affirmations was merely appeal to common practice, composition and division, you actually use the definition of composition. “But, I’m operating on the assumption that the vast majority of people […] are totes fine with that tone being used at creationists. “. Yet again, dame, you are a gentlewoman and a scholar.

That is not what a “strawman argument” means. It is not “choosing an easier topic”; it is MISREPRESENTING someone to present an easier-to-refute argument. On the other hand, if someone argues A, B, and C and I disagree with B and C it is perfectly fair to argue with B and C since those were in fact arguments presented. No matter how many times you ignorantly say it, your fuckwit misunderstanding will never be what a “strawman argument” means. Learn the fucking definitions of your logical fallacies, idiot.

I have already said I don’t defend Greg Laden’s place on the panel. I can surmise how it happened, I can understand that some reasonable people might consider the kerfuffle with Justin insufficient cause to boot him, but I personally think thought leaders (which is what a place on an official panel connotes) should be held to a higher standard than that.

There is, however, a great deal of difference between “one person is problematic” versus the claim that a much larger proportion of the panel are “bullies” or “wolves.”

You also have no fucking idea what the division/composition fallacy is. It’s when you state that a whole or part MUST have the properties of the part or whole, which is not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that because there are some cases where mockery is acceptable, that it is not CATEGORICALLY wrong to mock. I allow that mockery *might* be unacceptable in a given circumstance, but you actually have to make the case for that circumstance.

Johngreg argued A, B and C and you argued D, which was an anecdotal representation of the argument that would had made C true. That is a straw man. Please read again the statement i responded in the first place.
If you concede that Greg Laden should not had been a part of the panel, that means that he is a sure thing, an intruder, not problematic. Problematic are Mrs Zvan and Mrs Watson, and while i don’t have any info on Mrs Zvan, taking in consideration the OP video Mrs Watson is in fact an intruder in my opinion. That would make it 2 out of 5. The ratio we should be shoting for is 0 out of 5. 2 is a bit much.
And last, i have to thank you for allowing me to prove my statement using clearer, more concise explanation.
“It’s when you state that a whole[A] [..] MUST have the properties of the part[B].”
“But, I’m operating on the assumption that the vast majority of people[A] […] are totes fine with that tone being used at creationists[B].”
You’re operating under the assumption that a big part of the skeptics/atheists are ok with the tone you or a group which includes you use. Thank you again, most of the time i struggle for words. Gentlewoman and scholar all the way.

I sense a problem here. First, I think that in matters that are related to sociological phenomena, one must be careful to use the proper methodology when analyzing data (in this case, statements). I would avoid, for example, overusing quantitative techniques to gain deeper meaning about people’s perspective.

On the other hand, I might want to know that “4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum” which implies a survey resulting in a statistic (quant).

In the process of analyzing the comments in a forum like this, what often gets lost in the process is the voice of the person presenting the information. Mistreated groups have been warning us forever that they do not have a voice, they are not heard, and they are marginalized. Whether this happens at an individual level or societal level it is still bias/bigotry/prejudice. It is true in all directions – towards men, whites, women, blacks, gay straight.

What should be addressed is the behavior (the data, the comments) not the person or group (“ad homonym” attackes as I have seen it cleverly misspelled here). This is where we get into trouble.

We most certainly need proof, evidence, and some process for analysis. When we shoot from the hip – however cogent our arguments may be – we run the risk of running up the proverbial ladder of inference. What results is what we see here. The back and forth is important if either or both sides will concede an error, fallacy, or misrepresentation (or acknowledge where they went wrong). But if it results in ongoing verbal sparring, the main point(s) gets lost and are read by only a few who might have interest. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this- we are all free to spend our time as we see fit, and that includes feeding trolls (I am not referring to anyone here as a troll, for the record).

This just seems wasteful in a forum that could really do a lot to move us forward.

Johngreg argued A, B and C and you argued D, which was an anecdotal representation of the argument that would had made C true.

Wrong. John argued C (by which we mean Rebecca being dismissive, as I understand it), and I said that his argument was incomplete because he failed to distinguish between C and D, wherein C would be being dismissive of valid arguments, and D is being dismissive of absurd ones. He is perfectly free to actually substantiate his implied claim that Rebecca dismisses valid arguments, but he has never actually done that, and the burden of proof is on him.

That is a straw man.

Please learn what this fucking term means. PLEASE. I beg you, do not subject us to any more of your ignorance and time-wasting!

taking in consideration the OP video Mrs Watson is in fact an intruder in my opinion.

Well, you’ll need to substantiate your opinion for it to count for anything, and so far your attempts to substantiate it have been absolute shit, and have fallen victim to the same false equivalence that johngreg has been trying to pull when you equate mocking trolls with mocking “critics.”

“It’s when you state that a whole[A] [..] MUST have the properties of the part[B].”
“But, I’m operating on the assumption that the vast majority of people[A] […] are totes fine with that tone being used at creationists[B].”

No, idiot, “whole” is not the same as “vast majority.” And “MUST” implies a categorical statement that “vast majority” does not.

You’re operating under the assumption that a big part of the skeptics/atheists are ok with the tone you or a group which includes you use.

Are you seriously doubting that most skeptics are okay with making fun of creationists? SERIOUSLY??? I think you’re just grasping at faux outrage now. Find me all these skeptics that insist on being nice to creationists–they’re not in Thunderf00t’s viewership, they’re not in PZ’s readership, they’re not in Hemant’s readership, they’re not in Massimo & Julia’s audience, they’re not in Christina Rad’s audience, they’re certainly not in the Pastafarians’ readership (since it EXISTS to make fun of creationists!), they’re not in The Atheist Experience’s audience, they’re not in Rebecca’s readership, they’re not in the Skeptic’s Guide’s audience, etc., in any significant numbers. So cite them–where the fuck are they?! I made an observation that it seems to me the vast majority are fine with mocking creationists–this is not a composition/division fallacy, it is my estimation of a frequency (phrased so as to imply a confidence interval) based on the data of which I am aware. Moreover, I found it reasonably likely that I was arguing with someone who accepted implicitly that it’s okay to mock creationists, and I intended to challenge him as to why he was okay with mocking creationists and then preening as though mockery were categorically bad. If his response were actually that he was appalled by mocking creationists, then I would have to go back a step and defend that premise, but starting at a premise that is likely to be accepted by both parties is perfectly acceptable. In fact I even offered to you to argue that premise elsewhere if you didn’t accept it, simply for the sake of keeping this thread relevant, but I am perfectly happy to argue it.

You are right C meant Rebecca being dismissive. As a proof, i’ll use the OP video, the part when she recounts the story of a blogger that was banned from her twitter account. When asked why she banned him, she said that he called her a c**t. Later it was proven that in fact he never called her that, to which Mrs Watson replied that she called her another bad word, feminazi or femistasi. While she has every right to ban whomever she wants from her twitter account, her first affirmation was made without checking any fact. That is dismissive behavior. I’m in no shape or form able to account for all of Mrs Watson’s interactions, but from the OP video i would conclude that johngreg is right, at least for what concerns Mrs Watson.

and have fallen victim to the same false equivalence that johngreg has been trying to pull when you equate mocking trolls with mocking critics
Just so we’re on the same page, are you arguing that trolling trolls is not trolling?

No, idiot, “whole” is not the same as “vast majority.”
Again, so we’re on the same page, considering “whole” as 1, what percent of “whole” would a “vast majority” be? You have a cute clintonesque way of redefining what you say.

Are you seriously doubting that most skeptics are okay with making fun of creationists? SERIOUSLY???
There’s a funny saying, “generalisers are wankers”. Not all skeptics are born in your country, not all skeptics have your cultural background, not all skeptics have encountered the same level of creationist idiocy.
Not all skeptics are ok with making fun of creationists from the get-go. As i said before, it’s ok to make fun of creationism from the first contact, for creationism is an idea and ideas have no conscience or defense mechanisms. On the other hand, when first meeting a creationist there’s a possibility that creationism is the only view he was presented. It’s not ok to mock him for that. Mock his view, not him.
Ok, on with the unpleasant stuff. Believe it or not, you can be skeptical without reading/viewing other contemporary persons view on the matter. I read PZ for the biology stuff, i watch TAE for the amount of poes they get, i watch Tfoot because US creationists are funny and i don’t think mocking creationists from he get-go is ok. Unless you want to make me feel spacial and say that i’m unique in my views, i would say that there’s a majority of skeptics that do not employ your techniques when they interact with creationists.

While she has every right to ban whomever she wants from her twitter account, her first affirmation was made without checking any fact. That is dismissive behavior.

That’s nonsense. Petty nonsense. RW Twitterbanned someone for engaging in offensive name calling. The fact that, when asked about it later, she made a trivial mistake about exactly which particular offensive name that particular offensive ass had called her is just called “a mistake” (and one she admitted and corrected as soon as it was pointed out to her.) “Dismissive behaviour” suggests that she treats as insignificant the valid positions or opinions of others, not the exact choice of words of some troll that publicly compared her to a Nazi.

And what exactly is WRONG with showing indifference or disregard for someone who has a long history of antifeminist ranting and calls one a feminaz?! Why exactly is such utterly vapid, mean-spirited “critique” worthy of anyone’s time to research in detail?!

Of course you’re not, that would leave you with nothing left to complain about.

She didn’t check the facts, full stop.

What you mean is that she didn’t check the details. The fact is that she banned him for vicious, misogynistic name calling. That is actually the point. Which particular epithet was involved is trivial*. The other fact is that, when this trivial mistake was pointed out to her (by Tony suggesting that she was “a liar”) she immediately admitted her mistake, and made the trivial correction.

That you want us to believe that there is some loathsome behavior on her part in this speaks volumes about you.

Dismissive means showing indifference or disregard

Not exactly, but I won’t quibble over connotation when we’re clearly having trouble with mere definition. As you have been told, the implication in accusing someone of “dismissive* behaviour” as some kind of wrongdoing is that what or who they are rejecting is actually valid or worthy of consideration. Showing contempt for the contemptible, dismissing that which is not worth paying attention to, there is nothing wrong in that. When some internet douche shows up on Twitter calling you a cunt or comparing you to the Nazis and calling you a ridiculous parody of a rational thinker then you dismiss* him and rightly so.

————————–
Helpful words;

Trivial: of very little importance or value; insignificant
Dismiss: to bid or allow to go; to discard or reject
Dismissive: indicating lack of interest; scornful; disdainful.

Of course you’re not, that would leave you with nothing left to complain about.

While you accepting that Mrs Watson’s behavior was not a mistake would make your point moot. Unless Mrs Watson suddenly intervenes in this discussion to set us straight, both our opinions are unfalsifiable. As that is very unlikely to happen, i hold that “-He called me a c**t! -Nuhuh! -Whatevs, feminazi” is dismissive behavior. Then again, i don’t mind being called a dick and misogynazi[TM] is not that used. Until now.

That you want us to believe that there is some loathsome behavior on her part in this speaks volumes about you.

I have no problem with Mrs Whatson’s behavior (in this case), as i said, her twitter, her way of handling it. It’s up there, right above your post. Does this too speak volumes about me? Am i a good person now?

Not exactly, but I won’t quibble over connotation when we’re clearly having trouble with mere definition

Unless Mrs Watson suddenly intervenes in this discussion to set us straight, both our opinions are unfalsifiable.

You complained that she didn’t check her facts. There is no “setting straight” required. There is no argument whatsoever about the fact that she did not check to see whether he called her a cunt or a Nazi or the Wicked Witch of the West and, because of that, she made a mistake about which vile epithet Tony the verbally suppurating pustule had used. The problem is that not only do you think that this actually matters, you apparently want us to think that this was some kind of horrible, unforgivable sin. Well, off you go then, hating her with the burning intensity of a thousand suns until the heat death of the universe. Enjoy yourself. Wallow in it. Me, I’m going to spend a little more energy on the pernicious scum who say so many vicious things about this woman that she loses track of which pernicious scum said which vicious thing. Don’t worry though, I will save considerable scorn for those people who can’t seem to grasp which party in that particular exchange was the actual victim. You, for example.

Please, feel free to consider that dismissive.

P.S. Protip: Unfalsifiable means can not be proven false, not merely that something has not yet been proven false.

There is no argument whatsoever about the fact that she did not check to see whether he called her a cunt or a Nazi or the Wicked Witch of the West and, because of that, she made a mistake about which vile epithet Tony the verbally suppurating pustule had used.

Which is not the argument. The argument is weather it was a mistake on her part or not. Mistake in the “usually doesn’t happen” sense, not in the “he hit me first, so i can hit him in the side of the head” sense.

The problem is that not only do you think that this actually matters, you apparently want us to think that this was some kind of horrible, unforgivable sin.

You read it all wrong. I don’t think that which word was used matters. I think the way she handled the situation (by not checking the facts) matters. Sin doesn’t exist.

Well, off you go then, hating her with the burning intensity of a thousand suns until the heat death of the universe.

Well, ain’t i talking to a bunch of people seriously scarred from previous wars. Can you even conceive that between your position and “hating her with the burning intensity of a thousand suns until the heat death of the universe” there’s a lot of intermediary positions, with the “vast majority” of people being in the “Rebecca Who?” position? That majority included me before i watched the OP video. All the references to Mrs Watson that i had before that were from o bunch of titles on PZ’s blog, which were all positive. I assure you i’m still in the vicinity of the “Rebecca Who?” crowd.

Me, I’m going to spend a little more energy on the pernicious scum who say so many vicious things about this woman that she loses track of which pernicious scum said which vicious thing. Don’t worry though, I will save considerable scorn for those people who can’t seem to grasp which party in that particular exchange was the actual victim. You, for example.

Good for you. Ask for Sean Bean to play your role in the movie. I want a young Sean Connery for my role, please.

Please, feel free to consider that dismissive.

I feel free and consider that dismissive.

P.S. Protip: Unfalsifiable means can not be proven false, not merely that something has not yet been proven false.

The truth can only pe proven if Mrs Watson intervenes in the conversation, which i said is “very unlikely”. Therefore unfalsifiable.

No one disputes she made a mistake in the trivial sense; you have failed to show how this mistake is anything other than trivial, or in any way relevant to your insinuation that Watson dismisses valid criticism.

I think the way she handled the situation (by not checking the facts) matters.

So you think the appropriate way to handle a troll who has provided ample evidence in his blog that he is a tedious, prejudiced, intellectually stunted, privileged asshat is to spend hours reading every past blog post he wrote about you, and go through months of his past twitter feed? She checked the fact that matters, and that is that he has a bad case of Watson Derangement Syndrome. She misremembered a completely trivial detail after he already showed himself to be completely unworthy of attention or taking seriously. Why do you feel so entitled that your fellow trolls be treated with such scrupulous attention?!

I assure you i’m still in the vicinity of the “Rebecca Who?” crowd.

FUCKING BULLSHIT! You would never have made this many replies if you were actually so apathetic, so please don’t waste our time with obvious falsehoods.

So you think the appropriate way to handle a troll who has provided ample evidence in his blog that he is a tedious, prejudiced, intellectually stunted, privileged asshat is to spend hours reading every past blog post he wrote about you, and go through months of his past twitter feed? She checked the fact that matters, and that is that he has a bad case of Watson Derangement Syndrome. She misremembered a completely trivial detail after he already showed himself to be completely unworthy of attention or taking seriously. Why do you feel so entitled that your fellow trolls be treated with such scrupulous attention?!

No, i think you have to check the facts (as in “see if he’s a troll”) before handling him as a troll, which Mrs Watson did not do in this instance.

FUCKING BULLSHIT! You would never have made this many replies if you were actually so apathetic, so please don’t waste our time with obvious falsehoods.

Fucking bullshit is not a sanitary occupation. Unless you think all my replies in this thread are direct attacks on Mrs Watson, the correlation between the number of replies and my sentiments concerning Mrs Watson doesn’t exist.

I don’t think you quite understand what the word “dismissive” means. You have been trying to imply that RW is dismissive of CRITICISMS THAT HAVE MERIT, and this is not an instance of a criticism that has merit. I think she was perfectly right to dismiss that idiotic asshole, so just repeating that she dismissed him is not going to change anything.

No one disputes she made a mistake in the trivial sense.

Appeal to popular belief.

You know, you should actually learn how logical fallacies work before you try to throw them around, because this makes you look like a hopeless fuckwit. Appeal to popular belief is when two parties DISagree on an issue, and one of them tries to use the popularity of the belief amongst the general public to support zir position. This, in contrast, is a statement of common premises and refers only to the stated positions of those taking part in this debate (on this thread and elsewhere). You and I both agree that she made a mistake, I am simply pointing this out to move the discussion forward to the fact that your INTERPRETATION is wrong, so simply repeating the fact over and over again like a lobotomized parrot is not going to get you anywhere.

No, i think you have to check the facts (as in “see if he’s a troll”) before handling him as a troll, which Mrs Watson did not do in this instance.

But she did check the fact that he’s a troll. Calling someone a “cunt” is by no means the only way to be a troll. She emailed him with links to all the shitty anti-feminist things he was saying about her, and he whined that he was “just disagreeing” like whole cadres of trolls who insist on ignoring the odious ethical implications of their opinions. He had proved his trollishness beyond all reasonable doubt.

Fucking bullshit is not a sanitary occupation.

You know, I hate to tell you, but your inane misreadings of profanity aren’t funny, and they aren’t even insulting. They’re just vapid and take up too many pixels.

Unless you think all my replies in this thread are direct attacks on Mrs Watson, the correlation between the number of replies and my sentiments concerning Mrs Watson doesn’t exist.

Bullshit. For one, it’s not about “attacking”–it’s about being obsessed with trying to prove she did something wrong, even though it’s been explained to you ad nauseum that what she did was perfectly rational and appropriate, and you just keep refusing to budge from your insistence that RW **must** be wrong and **must** be an example of “wolf”-like behavior, even as you pathetically grasp at straws to do so and fail to make easily-discernable distinctions that utterly invalidate your argument, but here you are…

And while correlation doesn’t *prove* causality, you haven’t provided a more plausible reason why you are so obsessively misrepresenting her arguments and willfully misunderstanding her. Currently the provisional explanation that best fits the data is that you are an obsessive pseudo-skeptic who feels deeply uncomfortable about women speaking up for themselves, and therefore ties himself into logical knots to try to discredit RW.

You have been trying to imply that RW is dismissive of CRITICISMS THAT HAVE MERIT, and this is not an instance of a criticism that has merit. I think she was perfectly right to dismiss that idiotic asshole, so just repeating that she dismissed him is not going to change anything.

Ahem, not quite. The only thing i’m implying is that Mrs Watson had in this case a dismissive behavior. Which she had, as even you said “I think she was perfectly right to dismiss that idiotic asshole”, therefore johngreg was at least partially right in his assertion.

You and I both agree that she made a mistake

Incorrect. I disagree that what she made was a mistake. Read again what i wrote. Your whole statement is on the wrong side, because is predicated on us agreeing that she made a mistake.’

You know, I hate to tell you, but your inane misreadings of profanity aren’t funny, and they aren’t even insulting. They’re just vapid and take up too many pixels.

Not trying to be funny, not trying to insult.

For one, it’s not about “attacking”–it’s about being obsessed with trying to prove she did something wrong, […]

I think it’s the third time i say this: her tweeter, her way of handling things. Nothing wrong there. All that said, her behavior is consistent with what johngreg said.

and willfully misunderstanding her

You can’t have both. Either i am misunderstanding her, or i am willfully misrepresenting her. I assure you i’m not trying to misrepresent her, but i may be misunderstanding her, as i’m basing my assertion solely on the OP video.

Currently the provisional explanation that best fits the data is that you are an obsessive pseudo-skeptic who feels deeply uncomfortable about women speaking up for themselves, and therefore ties himself into logical knots to try to discredit RW.

What Nathair said. I notice you have failed thus far to provide any actual worthwhile viewpoint of which she has been “dismissive.”

Just so we’re on the same page, are you arguing that trolling trolls is not trolling?

This is dishonest framing. “Trolling” is lying, counterproductive, and/or aggressive behavior designed to manipulate and/or intimidate. Holding someone accountable for their poor behavior is not trolling. Making fun of poor arguments is maintaining standards in the marketplace of ideas=not trolling at all, any more than self-defense is assault.

Again, so we’re on the same page, considering “whole” as 1, what percent of “whole” would a “vast majority” be?

Depending on the discipline under consideration and the variability in the subjects of study, I’d say anywhere from 75-99.9%, but this really doesn’t matter as far as whether or not it is justifiable to mock creationism/creationists.

Not all skeptics are ok with making fun of creationists from the get-go.

I never said “all.” As I’ve already explained, I assumed THE COMPANY HERE and those acting outraged about Rebecca are, and challenged them why they would likely be fine with being dismissive & belittling of creationists but act outraged at Rebecca dismissing their sexism.

Mock his view, not him.

At a certain point, though, this just becomes sophistry. People tend to take it personally when their arguments are criticized anyway–look at how *shocked* people were at Rebecca calmly criticizing Stef McGraw’s argument, and clearly explaining the difference between sexuality and objectification. Look how *shocked* people were when Rebecca pointed out the absurdly bad argument that was “Dear Muslima,” and analyzed the privilege underlying why an otherwise intelligent person would make such a bad argument.

I had a hilarious example of this myself over on Thunderf00t’s MISOGYNIST video, when I called someone out for a strawman in claiming that Elevatorgate was just over “asking someone if they want coffee.” Someone named palerider1775 responded to my call-out with “Wow. Going﻿ full fucking hysterical. Why am I not surprised? And criticizing someone else’s argument while you’re at it? Hilariously sad.” As though an argument, once put forth by a ‘skeptic,’ was this sacred inviolate thing! Rather than something that EXISTS to face rigorous scrutiny.

Moreover, views don’t simply exist in a vacuum, and having certain views–especially when it comes to publicly advocating disregarding social norms regarding bodily autonomy and people’s right to privacy–does necessarily reflect certain values, and values do reflect on one’s character. Furthermore, dishonesty, willful ignorance, arguing in bad faith, and bigoted language are tactics that are beyond the pale, and are indicators of a person’s character–at a certain point, you just can’t keep doing bad things and expect to be considered a good person.

Finally, when someone insists on presenting a view (esp. repeatedly) that is wholly without merit, there needs to be some cost to their credibility or the marketplace of ideas will become saturated with cheap defective knock-offs and it won’t be worthwhile to try to sift through to find the good stuff, if we have to keep pretending those who spout bullshit are worth listening to.

Believe it or not, you can be skeptical without reading/viewing other contemporary persons view on the matter.

This is irrelevant. All I was showing is that mocking creationists/creationism is FAR from a fringe position, and I challenge you to offer up an argument as to why arguments from sexists are deserving of any more attention than creationist arguments.

I find the lack of “fucking” and “idiot” in your last post disturbing. Please rephrase it.

What Nathair said. I notice you have failed thus far to provide any actual worthwhile viewpoint of which she has been “dismissive.”

What i responded to Nathair.

This is dishonest framing. “Trolling” is lying, counterproductive, and/or aggressive behavior designed to manipulate and/or intimidate. Holding someone accountable for their poor behavior is not trolling. Making fun of poor arguments is maintaining standards in the marketplace of ideas=not trolling at all, any more than self-defense is assault.

So “memes, phallic ASCII renders and other seasoned paraphernalia”, to quote myself from an earlier post is, in fact “maintaining standards in the marketplace of ideas”. I accept your point as true and wave the white flag on this issue.

I assumed THE COMPANY HERE [..] would likely be fine with being dismissive & belittling of creationists but act outraged at Rebecca dismissing their sexism.

Assumption wrong. I at least i am not ok with the first, don’t really care about the latter.

So “memes, phallic ASCII renders and other seasoned paraphernalia”, to quote myself from an earlier post is, in fact “maintaining standards in the marketplace of ideas”. I accept your point as true and wave the white flag on this issue.

YES, when they are used to show that bullshit will be openly mocked as bullshit. This is not fucking difficult.

Assumption wrong. I at least i am not ok with the first, don’t really care about the latter.

1) You were not who I was talking to at the time–you just inserted yourself and seem to expect the conversation to retroactively cater to you.

2) I already posted at some length as to why these things should be okay and need to be okay, but you haven’t even addressed that, just informed me of your asserted, half-baked opinion.

YES, when they are used to show that bullshit will be openly mocked as bullshit. This is not fucking difficult.

Not cool. I already waved the white flag on this one. I get it. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, fight fire with fire. It’s clever, because trolls never expect that, nor are they used with such imagery/language. /chapeau

You were not who I was talking to at the time–you just inserted yourself and seem to expect the conversation to retroactively cater to you.

Ah, sorry, mea culpa. I’ll go and unread then, didn’t mean to peek in on a personal diary. It’s not entirely my fault though, i thought that when you said “THE COMPANY HERE” meant whomever reads your opinions, when you really meant only those you want to read your opinions. But then he who excuses himself, accuses himself. So, my bad.

I already posted at some length as to why these things should be okay and need to be okay, but you haven’t even addressed that, just informed me of your asserted, half-baked opinion.

This is why you should not mock a person for his/her knowledge, but the knowledge itself:
DOI: 10.1126/science.1089134
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.04.026

It’s clever, because trolls never expect that, nor are they used with such imagery/language.

Whether or not they expect it is irrelevant. The point is that people marginalized by the trolls’ attitudes will see that others are standing up for them, and to challenge the trolls’ privilege of free reign for saying bullshit.

i thought that when you said “THE COMPANY HERE” meant whomever reads your opinions, when you really meant only those you want to read your opinions.

No, you fucking idiot, I just meant that this seemed to be the likely position of the person I was arguing with at the time. You came in later, and I’m not a fucking psychic. If you disagree with my argument, you could make some coherent statement about the morality of mockery for the dishonest/ridiculous, instead of derailing endlessly with obtuse speculation about the prevalence of creationist-mocking and perpetually misunderstanding what logical fallacies mean.

This is why you should not mock a person for his/her knowledge, but the knowledge itself:

Firstly, I already made it abundantly clear I was not talking about deficits in knowledge–I was talking about dishonesty, willful ignorance (which, by definition, is NOT a knowledge deficit!), bigoted viewpoints, etc., and I already explained how these reflect on the person. For you to pretend that this discussion is about gaps in knowledge and not about dishonesty and derailing is a blatant strawman, and even further shows you to be a filthy, lying, worthless troll.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1089134

Yes, social rejection hurts. GOOD. That’s the fucking POINT. These people are being dishonest and are dragging down the level of debate–this is unacceptable behavior that harms honest inquiry, and marginalizes those who are the victims of whatever dishonestly-held position is at hand. There needs to be a strong disincentive for being deceitful, wasting people’s time with misrepresentations and/or poor research, or expecting an absurdly exacting level of explanation for everything they say that one refuses to understand, or treating any group of people as second-class citizens. The point is to create a climate where these behaviors are not tolerated and that the person perpetrating these harmful behaviors experiences some deterrence.

DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.04.026

How exactly is a paper on norepinephrine and acetylcholine modulation even remotely relevant to the topic at hand?!

Whether or not they expect it is irrelevant. The point is that people marginalized by the trolls’ attitudes will see that others are standing up for them, and to challenge the trolls’ privilege of free reign for saying bullshit.

Please consider why are trolls trolling. Responding to troll behavior with troll behavior and making it public may and will encourage others to respond the same way, which i guess can lead to some positive results at start, but all it does is teaching a bunch of other people how to troll. As *chan, reddit and other public forums will show you, trolling is just about the most enjoyable thing you can do in your spare time on the internet, and now you have more people capable of trolling.
More than that, i assure you that trolling the trolls is not going to stop them. We fish for any kind of response.

No, you fucking idiot,

Wahey, the holly duality.

Firstly, I already made it abundantly clear I was not talking about deficits in knowledge–I was talking about dishonesty, willful ignorance (which, by definition, is NOT a knowledge deficit!), bigoted viewpoints, etc., and I already explained how these reflect on the person. For you to pretend that this discussion is about gaps in knowledge and not about dishonesty and derailing is a blatant strawman, and even further shows you to be a filthy, lying, worthless troll.

Did i say something about knowledge deficit? Even in the text you quoted i said “This is why you should not mock a person for his/her knowledge, but the knowledge itself”. I see no deficit there.

The point is to create a climate where these behaviors are not tolerated and that the person perpetrating these harmful behaviors experiences some deterrence.

I think there’s a better way to showing creationists the truth than making them feel bad about their opinions, but to each his own.
In short, having one’s opinion attacked triggers an increased release of noradrenaline(similar to the one when one’s body is in danger) which in turn causes irritability, small scale panic attacks and fight-or-flight type decisions. Basically, you shouldn’t expect for someone to understand your point when you’re attacking his. Even if he’s blatantly wrong, his brain is in conservation mode.

Your misconceptions about trolls have already been addressed in the video, by Jay Smooth and, like, every other person who has written about experiencing modern trolling. As Rebecca said, “They don’t want attention. They want my silence.” So your whole understanding of this situation is laughably simplistic.

but all it does is teaching a bunch of other people how to troll.

I seriously doubt anyone who wants to troll doesn’t know how to!! I also seriously doubt that Rebecca’s highlighting of trolls will make much, if any, difference relative to the already-saturated landscape of trolling. Moreover, not confronting bullshit just lets it fester.

More than that, i assure you that trolling the trolls is not going to stop them. We fish for any kind of response.

Again, watch the video and realize that they’re not talking about old-school, trivial trolling.

You also don’t seem to realize that people can also block and ban trolls to stop them. Confronting (NOT “trolling”) the trolls is a way to hold them accountable to the larger commentariat, and to start dialogue among others about how marginalized identities are treated by the dominant group and what we as a society need to do about the values we communicate that makes this okay.

By the way, I find it hilarious that you’re sooooo outraged that Rebecca Watson engages in behavior you try to call “trolling,” and then proudly refer to yourself as a troll!

Did i say something about knowledge deficit? Even in the text you quoted i said “This is why you should not mock a person for his/her knowledge, but the knowledge itself”. I see no deficit there.

Mocking someone regarding the domain of knowledge only makes SENSE in the context of a knowledge deficit. Knowledge means “justified true belief.” If someone is correct, and has good reasons to be correct, what is there to mock?! The only time mockery would even *apply* would be when ze is INcorrect, which by definition requires a knowledge deficit if ze is honest. Moreover, you’ve completely ignored the POINT of what I was saying, that the issue here is TROLLS, who are operating NOT out of lack of knowledge, but out of some form of malice.

I think there’s a better way to showing creationists the truth

You are operating under the faulty assumption that all creationists must be honest brokers who just haven’t seen the truth. For many creationists, and many dedicated sexists, it’s not that they haven’t been “shown” the truth, it’s that they are actively trying to sabotage the truth to preserve their own privilege, be it religious or gender.

Basically, you shouldn’t expect for someone to understand your point when you’re attacking his.

But we’re not trying to get these trolls to understand our point of view. They have already shown they are deeply ideologically hostile to our point of view. What we’re trying to do is create spaces where people can engage in thoughtful discussion without interference from trolls, and to make trolling socially unacceptable, namely by exposing their idiocy to others, who will absorb the social norm that bigoted, uncritical, hostile behavior is not acceptable.

They also hate her for her freedoms.I wonder if the trolling decreased or increased after she started responding. My money is on increased.

I seriously doubt anyone who wants to troll doesn’t know how to!! I also seriously doubt that Rebecca’s highlighting of trolls will make much, if any, difference relative to the already-saturated landscape of trolling. Moreover, not confronting bullshit just lets it fester.

I’m with you on this one. Not confronting and banning is the way to go.

By the way, I find it hilarious that you’re sooooo outraged that Rebecca Watson engages in behavior you try to call “trolling,” and then proudly refer to yourself as a troll!

I aim to please. I’m not outraged, i’m calm and peachy, if only for the fact that she didn’t ever or will ever apply it on me. Regarding me referring to myself proudly as a troll, you said it first about me, and i’m just trying not to disagree with you on not important issues. Basically, this would make the conversation seem more familiar.

For many creationists, and many dedicated sexists, it’s not that they haven’t been “shown” the truth, it’s that they are actively trying to sabotage the truth to preserve their own privilege, be it religious or gender.

Kathryn Schulz: “Being wrong: Adventures in the margin of error”. What you wrote here describes perfectly the third stage. Funny.

The only thing i’m implying is that Mrs Watson had in this case a dismissive behavior.

You’re equivocating on the meaning of “dismissive”–you’re hoping that people will assume it refers to legitimate things, because that’s the only way such a criticism would make any sense. Just to point out OVER AND FUCKING OVER AGAIN that Watson was “dismissive” of someone who absolutely and completely deserved to be dismissed, when we agree that she dismissed him and applaud her for it, is a fucking waste of time. You also tried to imply her treatment of him was wrong–you called her a “wolf” and said she had no business on the panel.

Which she had, as even you said “I think she was perfectly right to dismiss that idiotic asshole”, therefore johngreg was at least partially right in his assertion.

No, johngreg’s assertion was that it was inappropriate for RW to be on that panel. NOTHING you or he has posted backs that up. Moreover, he said RW dismisses “anyone who holds opinions contrary to her own.” (emphasis mine.) I have shown that neither you nor he has demonstrated that she categorically dismisses people, or that she dismisses them for simply “disagreeing” as opposed to be unethical, derailing, misogynistic, illogical fools unworthy of anyone’s time.

Incorrect. I disagree that what she made was a mistake.

No, you said that she failed to check her facts. That is *at least* a mistake–if you want to claim there was more to it than that, I have already invited you to provide evidence for that assertion, but what kind of “dismissive behavior” for which you are chiding her about not checking facts does not by necessity include a mistake?

Not trying to be funny, not trying to insult.

Then what the fuck is the point of wasting pixels willfully misinterpreting “fucking bullshit”? It’s just so unbelievably inane, and you’ve done it multiple times and it’s just so thoroughly pointless. Please don’t waste my time.

Nothing wrong there. All that said, her behavior is consistent with what johngreg said.

This is bullshit. Johngreg said she dismissed ANYONE, when in fact all you have been able to substantiate is dismissing trolls (which we never disagreed with in the first place). You have not proven that. Moreover, johngreg was talking about dismissive behavior that should have disqualified her from the panel which is completely inconsistent with your saying “nothing wrong in that” so you can keep JAQing Off when we’ve demolished every objection you’ve tried to put forth. Furthermore, YOUR insistence on referring to Rebecca as a “wolf” and insisting that I should comment on the “moral” implications of her being on the panel are grossly inconsistent with your belated claims that there’s “nothing wrong there.”

Currently the provisional explanation that best fits the data is that you are an obsessive pseudo-skeptic who feels deeply uncomfortable about women speaking up for themselves, and therefore ties himself into logical knots to try to discredit RW.

Confirmation bias.

Here’s an idea–why don’t you stop throwing out the names of logical fallacies in the absence of any coherent argument. Have you noticed that you fail Every. Single. Time?! You don’t even fucking know what these terms mean!

Making an assessment, and carefully describing it as a “provisional explanation” is not “confirmation bias” any more than any pattern recognition would be. To make a claim of confirmation bias, you would need to provide evidence that I have overlooked or discounted, and all the evidence you have provided of yourself is in fact consistent with my hypothesis, and addressed in real-time. You have gone on pages and pages of replies verging on total incoherence trying to argue something–ANYTHING, no matter how tangential and how contradictory to your previous posts–that could keep a debate going where you could insinuate that people speaking up against trolls are “wolves” and are wrong to speak up and are really just trolling themselves, even though you can’t actually substantiate an argument as to why they’re bad, but you’ll just keep using words that imply badness and then weasel around when called on your bullshit, and that our arguments must be fallacious (even when you blatantly misinterpret them to try to make your claims!). Where exactly is all this stellar logic that my “confirmation bias” is not seeing? What is a more parsimonious explanation for how insistent you are to criticize only the people who are anti-harassment and anti-troll?

This is an argument from a faulty analogy. You are trying to compare RW’s assessment to one where GWB overlooked an obvious, explicitly-stated explanation (“You Great Satan are engaging in military interventionalism that insults, endangers, and impoverishes large numbers of our people”) in favor of a self-serving and far-fetched one that does nothing to explain why we are targeted as opposed to, say, Amsterdam. In contrast, Rebecca saying people want her silence is consistent with what they’re actually saying (e.g., “Why do you keep talking? Nobody cares what you say” and the batshit fury when she publicly criticized Stef McGraw), and is much more likely than a claim that these people–including many influential persons in the skeptic movement–have heaped vitriol on her for over a year just for attention.

I wonder if the trolling decreased or increased after she started responding.

This is blatant victim-blaming, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself, you filthy, vile, steaming piece of shit!! NO ONE deserves to be harassed. NO ONE should have their harassment framed as an expected reaction to what they did. Your concern trolling that she could just get trolled less by being quiet is EXACTLY the mentality of “they want my silence” that you tried to claim was soooo beyond the pale just a sentence ago!

WE FUCKING KNOW that standing up for yourself gets backlash. This is not news to anyone who has ever been involved in ANY kind of social justice issue. But the objection to trolling is not just the number of bad comments on a webpage or nasty emails, it’s the chilling effect that such behavior has on people’s participation on online spaces. People who are going after the root cause and withstanding a lot of abuse to try to change the social norms KNOW that they are going to get an increase in the level of abuse in the short term, but they are trying to address the underlying problems so that the next wave of people can go about their Internet WITHOUT having to self-censor to avoid harassment. This is not a fucking difficult concept, and I am so disgusted with you right now I could vomit.

I’m with you on this one. Not confronting and banning is the way to go.

How can you say you’re “with me on this one”? I specifically said “not confronting” lets bullshit fester, and then you say it’s the way to go. You seem to have ignored everything on the panel about how unpleasant it is to be weighed down in silence about being bullied and trolled, and what the value in a support network and openly criticizing the social attitudes that lead to these practices. You have totally ignored everything said about raising the social cost of trolling and engaging the whole community in discussion about why this sort of thing happens, and making others aware of how and why this happens.

Kathryn Schulz: “Being wrong: Adventures in the margin of error”. What you wrote here describes perfectly the third stage. Funny.

Again, just naming a logical fallacy without providing any evidence that you understand it has blown up in your face EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Why the fuck do you expect this to be any different? Why the fuck do you think you can refer to a citation so obliquely that I can’t even tell what your objection IS until I waste my time to track down this book, never mind the fact that you’ve made no argument whatsoever as to why your little pet theory should even apply!

This is blatant victim-blaming, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself, you filthy, vile, steaming piece of shit. This is not a fucking difficult concept, and I am so disgusted with you right now I could vomit.

Sorry for being this late, life has a way of getting in the way.

Thank you dear lady, these are the words i was waiting for, and this is the reaction i was expecting. /chapeau

Woah! I’m really digging the template/theme of this blog. It’s simple, yet effective.
A lot of times it’s tough to get that “perfect balance” between superb usability and visual appeal. I must say you’ve done a superb job with this.
Additionally, the blog loads super quick for me on Firefox.
Exceptional Blog!

A person necessarily help to make seriously articles I’d state. That is the very first time I frequented your website page and to this point? I amazed with the research you made to make this actual publish amazing. Magnificent process!

I’m surprised by the wisdom in this blog I found it to be not only very motivating but it really also made me reflect. It is hard now a days to search out related information to ones search, so I’m pleased that I found this article post

Before you already know it you will find yourself scrounging for flowers,
a card, a box of chocolates or possibly a reservation at Applebee’s.

According to Chrissie Wildwood’s The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Aromatherapy,
soap disturbs the effectiveness in the Epsom salt and may
block the elimination of toxins from your body. He verbally abuses you by frequently criticizing you.